[MD] squirrel

[Fam. Kintziger-Karaca]

Greetz, gang





> John said to Ham:
> I still have problems with nothingness.  I'd posit that we conceptualize
> nothingness from a pre-realized sense of being.  Nothingness is just too
> "not there" for any kind of perceptual distinguishing.
>
> dmb says:
> Well, I don't know what "a pre-realized sense of being" is supposed mean.
> But I think "nothingness" is just a reified abstraction of a very unfancy
> idea. We can say there is "nothing" in my pocket or there is "nothing" in my
> hand. But when "nothingness" itself is posited as a existential reality or
> an ontological fact, then you've gone off the deep end. You mistakenly
> turned an idea into a thing. And then you marvel at what a mysterious thing
> it is, becoming awestruck by a fiction. An example of actual "nothingness"
> would include my interest in "nothingness". It would be fun to diagram my
> interests in the form of a pie chart.
>
>
> O
>
> Please notice the absence of the red area. It represents "nothingness". The
> blue area represents my interest in Absolute Idealism, by the way, and the
> white area represents my interest in good ideas.
>
> Thanks , Dmb

Comment Adrie

I strongly agree on the nothingness defenition, Dave.

Nothingness is what it says,-zip, nada , a hole within a illusionary hole.


In another post , DMB says, in response on Khoo

Well, it's definitely good to get outside and I'd go crazy if I didn't get big doses of silence every 

day. But I'd like to think that discussing Quality can be a high quality endeavor, that doing 

philosophy can be an art form. Pirsig's use of the art gallery analogy suggest that. His 

characterization of physicists as creative artists fits neatly with this idea too.
You'd think paintball would count as an art form too. At least there is some paint involved, but no. 

It's just fun. Painting by numbers doesn't count either, and that involves brushes and a canvas as 

well as paint. Counts against you to paint that way, in fact, unless you're a child. Stand up comedy 

and poetry can be art forms and they're nothing but words, so you never know what's gonna be art.


Comment Adrie,

I agree that Pirsig (several times)introduces Physiks and Physisists into both
ZAM and LILA, sometimes only shining true in his thinkingpatterns, sometimes , however, very
explicitly.

But of more importance,is the hidden impact of Local_ versus_non-local reality,

This local_versus_non-local reality, is, 1) of course  a reflection on relativity
                                            Einstein is named in the same paragraph
                                            and connected by context, content.

                                         2) making the congruence with Quantummechanics
                                            as the NON_local reality or local reality itself
                                            is not conflicting with,...relativity!!
                                            is not conflicting with,...quantumphysiks

AND furthermore clearly, Both NON_local and local are not conflicting with Quality =reality, as 
this remains , of course , this remains to be the "eventcovering"umbrella. LOCAL_REALITY is higher in hierargy
as non_local reality=not observed


This is the bridge between all worlds.multiple realitys.

This is where it can be found in LILA

Quote Pirsig


James and a group of friends were on an outing somewhere and one of them
chased the squirrel around a tree. The squirrel instinctively clung to the
opposite side of the tree and moved so that as the man circled the tree the
squirrel also circled it on the opposite side.
After observing this, James and his friends engaged in a philosophic
discussion of the question: Did the man go around the squirrel or didn't
he? The group broke into two philosophical camps and Phædrus didn't
remember how the argument was resolved. What impressed him was James'
interest in the question. It showed that although James was no doubt an
expert philosophologist (certainly he had to be to teach the stuff at
Harvard) he was also a philosopher in the creative sense. A
philosophologist would have been mildly contemptuous of such a discussion
because it had no "importance," that is, no body of philosophical writings
existed about it. But to a creative philosopher like James the question
was like catnip.
It had the smell of what it is that draws real philosophers into
philosophy. Did the man go around the squirrel or didn't he? He was
north, south, east and west of the squirrel, so he must have gone around
it. Yet at no time had he ever gone to the back or to the side of the
squirrel. That squirrel could say with absolute scientific certitude,
"That man never got around me."
Who is right? Is there more than one meaning of the word "around?" That's
a surprise! That's like discovering more than one true system of geometry.
How many meanings are there and which one is right?
It seems as though the squirrel is using the term "around" in a way that is
relative to itself but the man is using it in a way that is relative to an
absolute point in space outside of the squirrel and himself. But if we
drop the squirrel's relative point of view and we take the absolute fixed
point of view, what are we letting ourselves in for? From a fixed point in
space every human being on this planet goes around every other human being
to the east or west of him once a day. The whole East River does a
half-cartwheel over the Hudson each morning and another one under it each
evening. Is this what we want to mean by "around?" If so, how useful is
it? And if the squirrel's relative point of view is false, how useless is
it?
What emerges is that the word "around," which seems like one of the most
clear and absolute and fixed terms in the universe suddenly turns out to be
relative and subjective. What is "around" depends on who you are and what
you're thinking about at the time you use it. The more you tug at it the
more things start to unravel. One such philosophic tugger was Albert
Einstein, who concluded that all time and space are relative to the
observer.
We are always in the position of that squirrel.


Quote from "LILA"

comment Adrie

Mr Pirsig importing general relativity, multiple realities and especially,
importing local---non local reality.

So , much of this abstraction can be found back in an article i was earlier mentioning
and aswere i mentioned, that Pirsig's MOQ is in fact , truly a very strong interpretation of the weak 

Quantum interpretation, strange, Bodvar was very right about this.(only this), strange because it is 

the most difficult part of LILA.

This was the article


http://www.igpp.de/english/tda/pdf/wqt.pdf

i will abstract , however , an important part from the intro

Complementarity and entanglement are notions which have become popular through
the significance they received in quantum theory. Nevertheless they were and are
applied in other fields, even beyond physics, as well. There are cases in which their
purely physical meaning is naturally extended, in other cases they are used in ways
making the connnection to physics hard, inscrutable, or even impossible.
Applying complementarity and entanglement beyond physics, one is faced with
three logical possibilities.
. Within a strong reductionist approach, one would understand every kind of
complementarity and entanglement as a manifestation of the quantum theoretical
significance of those notions in an apparently different context.
. Assuming that the formal scheme of ordinary quantum theory has realizations
beyond physics, the application of complementarity and entanglement is
possible by direct and complete analogy to ordinary quantum theory.
. A weaker assumption is that a generalized version of the formal scheme of ordinary
quantum theory, in which particular features of ordinary quantum theory
are not contained, should be used in some non-physical contexts. If concepts
like complementarity and entanglement can still be defined in such a generalized
scheme, a generalization of those notions beyond physics is achieved.
In this contribution we propose a formal way to define the concepts of complementarity
and entanglement in the spirit of the third option. We do this in a manner
allowing a stepwise relaxation of restricting conditions needed for their definition in
the context of ordinary quantum physics. The main purpose of this approach is
to sketch possibilities for applying the two notions in a less restricted, but equally
precise way. As will be demonstrated, the intended areas of possible application beyond
the scope of physics cannot be successfully addressed in terms of either of the
first two options mentioned above. In other words, the attempt is to generalize the
mathematical and conceptual framework of physical quantum theory in such a way
that the generalized, weak version of the theory is still mathematically formulated,
but no longer restricted to physics in its traditional scope.
To be a bit more explicit, complementarity will be extended beyond the concept
of non-commuting properties of a quantum system such as momentum and position
as elements of a C*-algebra. Entanglement, which is tightly related to complementarity,
will similarly be extended beyond the concept of (generally) non-local
correlations (not interactions) between non-commuting properties of quantum systems.
In particular, a formal framework will be outlined that might facilitate using
the concepts of complementarity and entanglement in situations exceeding the limits
of physics as a science of the material world. For instance, the significance of
complementarity and entanglement could be explored in philosophical, psychologica


""""OR PHILOSOPHYCAL PROBLEM AREAS."""  , emphasis is mine


If somebody is reading the article , just disregard the formula's and equations.


and in answer for the next question, ..in the timeframe Mr Pirsig wrote the book, the weak 

interpretation of quantumphysiks was the only option,most things are only proven after lila.


So, how a squirrel can hide...

greetzz, DMb, thx for the example

Adrie