[MD] Betternes - 4 levels of!

[118]

> LILA'S Child Mc Watt's impression on keeping
>             Quality free of concepts page 284
>
> "Previous intellectual constructions of time up to the 20th century
> were absolute, that is to say, people thought that when bodies moved
> or forces acted there was no affect on space or time. Einstein’s theory
> of general relativity showed this wasn’t true and that time did in fact
> have an independent existence, as Hawking says on page 38 of A
> Brief History of Time: “…In general relativity it became meaningless
> Lila's Child
> 285
> to talk about space and time as being outside the limits of the
> universe.”
> The MOQ says all of reality flows from Dynamic Quality and that
> everything we perceive is some type of (temporary) static pattern.
> This means that space-time evolved as an early static inorganic
> pattern along with the laws of physics and the particles they produced.
> This means that space-time itself is a static pattern that will one day
> dissolve back into Dynamic Quality. This is consistent with the Big
> Bang view of the evolution of the universe because this view states
> that space-time was created by the Big Bang and evolved as the
> structure of space and time that we now experience everyday.
> Pirsig had the following to say on the above (in a letter addressed
> to me on October 6th 1997). It is especially important to note where
> he points out the part where I mention in my paper that the Dynamic
> aspect of time as being a “concept of intuition” is not strictly correct.
> He says: “What Northrop says is correct but I wouldn’t call it a
> Dynamic aspect. It’s important to keep all ‘concepts’ out of Dynamic
> Quality. Concepts are always static. Once they get into Dynamic
> Quality they’ll overrun it and try to present it as some kind of a
> concept itself. I think it’s better to say that time is a static
> intellectual
> concept that is one of the very first to emerge from Dynamic Quality.
> That keeps Dynamic Quality concept free. "end.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
> Comment Adrie.
> The chance that Anthony can back this up with Pirsig's
> correspondence is about 99,98 %, but i could be wrong.
>

Hi Adrie,
Thank you for providing this because it does open up the possibility for
discussion.  I am sure Ant put a lot of work into his thesis, and I
appreciate that, having had to defend one of my own.  What I write below is
of course just my opinion.  I can defend such an opinion against
questioning, I hope.  Otherwise my opinion will have to change.  This is not
uncommon since I am learning.

To start with, Einstein did not SHOW anything.  He proposed a theory, which
at the time was revolutionary, and is still being debated through data.
 Therefore Hawking's opinion in this piece should be viewed with skepticism
when approaching such a theory as dogmatic.  It is a good theory and still
has a way to go.  The Higgs Boson is one example.  Therefore the dogmatic
way in which this is presented is misleading.  One can use MOQ to prove
physics just as well.

The Big Bang is also a theory, and if one ties one's metaphysics to such a
theory, they have to be ready to change it when the theory changes.  One
cannot hitch a metaphysics to a theory in physics to prove the metaphysics.
 So, same comment as above.

Yes, of course concepts are static, but they also have a dynamic component.
 I don't think you can argue with that.  Such a thing is demonstrated
through the interpretation of MOQ.  If by concepts one is saying that "this
is definitely what it is", then I would also say that such concepts are not
appropriate, and agree.  This is not what we are talking about.  We are
talking about introducing concepts for the purposes of discussion and
manipulation.  I see a variety of such concepts in the passage above.  To
say that dynamic quality should be kept concept free in general is to say we
cannot discuss it.  If so, what is Ant's Ph.D all about?

As I have said before, the best way to interpret God is to keep him concept
free.  This is indeed a path to follow, but it sure doesn't stem from RMP's
books, those are full of concepts.  Such is the nature of inquiry.

So, time keeps Dynamic Quality concept free.  Could you please explain that
to us?

Thanks,
Mark

>
>
> --
> parser
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>