[MD] Tweaking the emergence

[118]

On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 6:37 PM, Tuukka Virtaperko
<mail at tuukkavirtaperko.net> wrote:
> Mark,
>
>> Mark:
>> In my opinion as a scientist, science is as much a metaphysics as MoQ.
>
>
> Tuukka:
> Any form of science is a primitive form of metaphysics. For example, Physics
> is a primitive form of the MOQ, which focuses, or intends to focus, only on
> inorganic quality.

Mark:
Well it would depend what you mean by primitive.  It can be said that
the primitive are actually closer to Quality than we are with our
computers, TVs, ipads, living in some surreal world of our own making.
 MoQ is trying to balance that, by making us once again aware of
Quality, and not this fantasy world created by words.  It is no
different from Zen,or Taoism,or Hermeticism.  Besides, I am a
biophysicist so I do not deal with the inorganic.

Science only deals with the measurable.  However, with recent
propositions in string theory, we are projecting things that cannot be
measured.  In this area we are indeed formulating theories based on
symmetry and beauty.  So this goes into the realm of the alchemy of
old.  Physics is getting better at expanding its range, and bringing
in beauty as part of their formula creation.  For if the formula is
not beautiful, what it represents is not beautiful either.

 But what I'm saying is this:
>
> 1. Metaphysics, in order to be useful, has to be broader in the scope of
> subject matter than any empirical or normative theory.
>
> 2. Scientific theories are subordinate to metaphysics, because metaphysics
> is used to define, what is true. Metaphysical statements are not true of
> false in and of themselves. But within a certain metaphysical context,
> scientific statements can be deemed true or false. In order to evaluate,
> whether a metaphysical theory is true, we would need a "meta-metaphysics",
> which would defeat the purpose of having metaphysics in the first place. Do
> you see where I'm going at?

Metaphysics creates what is true just as much as science does, in my
humble opinion.  This is why Pirsig talks about gravity the way he
does.  He calls these things ghosts, which is often misinterpreted.
Creations would be a better world.  Not that I have anything against
such fabrications since that is what we do as humans, and we should
glorify in it.

It is interesting that physics is often used to support MoQ.  Subjects
within MoQ can also deemed to be true or false, it all depends on the
paradigm one is using.  The purpose of any metaphysics is to create a
meaningful structure.  Science has the same objective.  Much can be
gained from science in the material.  Much can also be gained from
MoQ.  However, it is not for everyone.  I hope it will be considered
meaningful to more than are enraptured by it at this time, however.
Peace on Earth and all that nonsense.

Within any metaphysics any statement is given as reality.  However, if
one approaches from a "relative" standpoint, then such things are seen
as silly.  So, what is your choice, meaningful or silly?
>
>
>> Mark:
>>  For it gives us a paradigm from which to understand reality.  The
>> reality of science is no more real than the reality of MoQ.
>
>
> Tuukka:
> The reality of science is less real than the MOQ. I am only using science to
> fine-tune an attribute of the MOQ. Pirsig couldn't have written LILA unless
> Darwin had invented the theory of evolution, yet that theory is science, not
> metaphysics. At least it is not metaphysically impressive in any other way
> than providing an alternative for creationism. That is a significant feat,
> but that happened 200 years ago. The metaphysical merits of the theory of
> evolution are now taken for granted at large. Therefore, that theory is
> mostly interesting just as a subset of the MOQ concerning the biological
> level. See? Evolution is a metaphysical theory, but its scope is much
> smaller than that of the MOQ.

Sure, you can say that.  I have no problem with determining Quality as
an expression of reality.  But, in the end, I do not think that MoQ
and science are all that different.  Pirsig is not using the theory of
evolution for MoQ, I have presented why many times.  If Quality is
evolvingin the biological sense, then there must be pressures to make
it evolve which lie outside of Quality.  The levels would be analogous
to 'niches" as used in evolution of species.  However, such a pressure
being imposed from the "outside" of Quality is never discussed in MoQ.
 That is, what is it that makes Quality evolve the way it does?  If it
were 'betterness" then such betterness would have to be separate from
Quality,if we use Darwin's theory.  Evolution in MoQ simply means
directional change.  This is not biological evolution, or the
evolution of the cosmos as cosmologist see it.  It is evolution
peculiar to MoQ.  Darwin has got nothing to do with it, and I believe
that Pirsig would say the same thing.

We all appreciate reality within the vernacular of the times.
Therefore MoQ must be told in a manner in which people understand it.
This is no different from how Jesus had to present God to his
followers, and that was in the format of the accepted God of the Jews.
 What Jesus saw had nothing to do with that type of God.  The same can
be said for Buddhism which accepted the Hindu Gods.  Don't get
distracted by the format in which MoQ is presented, for it is
presenting something that can be said in many different formats, and
has been through the ages.  Look beyond the concepts and words.
>
>> Mark: I am not
>> sure how you would consider science to be outside the realm of
>> metaphysics.
>
>
> Tuukka:
> I never said that nor believed so. If I did, it was a mistake. Science is
> subordinate to metaphysics. Did I really say something stupid like that
> earlier?

Well, a psychologist would tell you that metaphysics is subordinate to
psychology and is purely dependent on some conditional response which
is determined by our history.  I hope you see this as somewhat naive.
Subordination is not necessary for MoQ to be presented.  In fact such
a statement is somewhat trivial.
>

>>
>> Mark:
>> Of course it can be said, Quality can be presented in any number of
>> ways.  And indeed it has.  Just look at the Tao Te Ching, the Buddhist
>> philosophy, the Hermetic philosophy.
>
>
> Tuukka:
> Sure, theoretically. But how are these presentations relevant to what I'm
> doing right now? I mean, I take that Eastern philosophical approach already
> for granted - the theoretical approach to speaking of Quality. But I don't
> know what the word Quality is intended to specifically mean in the context
> of this conversation. The very message of those aforementioned works of
> Eastern philosophy is, that Quality is a figure of speech (Diamond Sutra
> chpt. 30). It has no defined meaning. That's what Pirsig says, too.

Well, I do not know what you are doing right now.  In my opinion, it
is important to review all the great philosophies (religions included)
through the ages and see how they relate to MoQ.  We do not want to
reinvent the wheel. All these philosophies were created by the human
mind and it therefore stands to reason that they have similarities.
The only differences are in the manner in which they are presented.
We can dispute these presentations all we want, but that is futile and
will not lead anywhere.  We would be arguing over symbols rather than
what they represent.
>
> This means I don't understand what you mean by saying Quality is not
> equivalent to these levels. I thought you should have said, that Quality
> neither is equivalent nor is not equivalent to these levels.

Quality is not defined by levels.  The levels are a mode of
presentation of a deeper realization.  You can play the word games all
you want, but they will not lead you anywhere, in my opinion.  You
need to take a stand on what Quality means to you.  If it is "not
this, not that", then what does that mean to you?  If you say that
such meaning cannot be defined, then you have flunked metaphysics 101.
>
>> Mark: Ask
>> yourself why Zen was part of the title of Pirsig's first book.  Ask
>> yourself why Pirsig saw Tao and Quality as being the same thing.  The
>> levels are simply a paradigm.  My other advice is for you not to get
>> too rigid with these levels, they will only lead you astray in your
>> understanding of Quality, imo.
>
>
> Tuukka:
> I don't know what it means to have problems understanding Quality. And I'm
> fine with that. Problems understanding the MOQ are another thing. You are
> speaking to me as if I were someone I don't, personally, even know.

I suppose what it means to me is to NOT have some notion of what
Quality means to you, and therefore not be able to construct a
metaphysics around it.  I apologize if I misconstrued what you
presented over the time we have been corresponding.  The levels are
not essential for understanding Quality.  Quality was presented in
ZAMM without levels.
>
> My levels are much less rigid than Pirsig's. Pirsig's failure to express
> them as formulae is not such a bad thing, because had he been too precise,
> LS would not have formed, and maybe MD would also be inactive, with MOQ
> being studied in the academy, instead - or even forgotten, because it never
> appeared in a best selling novel.

Well, Tuukka, here you are using formulae which is part of science.
Do you not think that using such primitive methods will result in a
primitive metaphysics? :-)  Personally, I like the use of formulas as
yet another manner of description.  As I have said, there are
thousands of ways of describing Quality.  Some are better than others,
in terms of reaching an agreement.  So I encourage you to continue.
>
> But why are you discussing the MOQ, if you don't want to know more about it?
> How could you know more if you insist on all knowledge being vague, so that
> you can't tell the difference between one thing and another? I'm not trying
> to tell the mutual differences between all things. I'm only trying to
> increase the amount of differences we can tell.

Tuukka, there is nothing to know, only that to create.  I want to
create more, and I think you do too.  Knowledge is vague if it cannot
be understood by another (I am talking about the intellectual variety
of knowledge).  If you have knowledge which you understand, then it is
not intellectually vague.  There is no intellectual knowledge about
being able to ride a bike, you can think about other things while you
do it.  This is the other form of knowledge.  We have intelectual
memory, but there is also muscle memory, cellular memory, immune
memory, and so forth.

 Quality provides a simple paradigm for the differences between all
things.  This is because the ONLY differences are in terms of their
qualities.  So Quality is the Source of these differences.
>
> I don't even know what is "all things". Of course "all things are Quality",
> but what is "Quality"? Does Lila have Quality?

In my opinion, nothing HAS Quality.  Quality comes before such
"having".  We see differences in qualities because these differences
are created by Quality.  They are not owned by the object itself, but
differentiate the object from another.  It is the source of this
differentiation that should be looked at.  Of course it is not any
"thing", because it creates things.  It creates self and other as
well, and the sensation of time.  This can all be shown quite
logically which I have done in the past.  It just takes a shift in
view from the objects themselves to what lies between them.  It is
kind of like one of those optical illusions that can be look at in two
different ways, but never in the two ways in the same time.  So, take
your eyes off the objects themselves, and look between.  There you
will find Quality.  At least I do, and I find my view to be most
friendly and meaningful; full of joy.
>>
>
> Tuukka:
> I am well aware of what Pirsig experienced. I meant I do not consider
> something interesting just because Pirsig thought so. It also has to be a
> good idea, which makes me want to play with concepts. You see, I don't need
> metaphysics to attain happiness, because I'm already happy. But I need to
> have something to do. And I love playing with concepts and logic! I've been
> doing this for seven (?) years and you wish to familiarize me with the
> basics. :D Nice going... I don't need that kind of help, thank you.

I am not sure you have any idea what Pirsig experienced, for you would
have to go through that experience.  If you had, then you would not be
so confused, as you seem to be.  Concepts are played with to represent
what he experienced.  If you are not interested in that experience,
then perhaps you have a different MoQ.  That is of course fine with
me, but call it something different.  My road towards Quality was very
similar to Pirsig's.  At least I had his book to refer to which he did
not.  So for that I thank him for helping me make sense of it and not
completely loosing touch with the reality I had educated into me.  It
can be lonely living in a reality which nobody understands, but is
very very real.  Platt had the same problem, at least so he told me.
>
> What I would like to have is answers to questions and links to useful
> articles such as the one Marsha provided.

Yes, I am no different

>As a reminder, my aim is to
> provide the MOQ in a format that an academic person would find intelligible.
> I'm doing it because it can be done, and nobody has yet done it. You can't
> know I'm mistaken before you actually study my work, which you can do. This
> is probably something you're already familiar with:
>
> http://www.moq.fi/recursive-patterns/recursive-patterns/
>
> This, on the other hand, is a stub of the English translation of the
> relativizability article, but it doesn't yet have explanations on what it
> has to do with the MOQ.
>
> http://www.todellisuudenomistaja.net/suhteutuvuus-ja-sen-seurauksia/#comment-802
>
> The point of the article is, that DQ is a nonrelativizably used predicate,
> which means it doesn't have a defined meaning. From a logical point of view,
> Pirsig's insistence that reality is sq/DQ seems nonsensical at first,
> because it's hard to figure out what's the logical meaning of mentioning DQ
> in the first place. Make no mistake, it is intuitively compelling, but why?
> What is the beauty we see in that statement?
>
> I will argue that the metaphysical statement that reality is sq/DQ amounts
> to a declaration, that there should be, at most, only one nonrelativizably
> used predicate within any given discourse. This is because the worst case
> scenario in having a nonrelativizably used predicate in academic text is,
> that if the truth value of a contingent proposition depends on that
> predicate, the proposition is a contradiction. Therefore, Pirsig's
> metaphysical statement of reality consisting of sq/DQ amounts to the
> declaration, that all nonrelativizably used predicates are equivalent. That
> is, there is only one DQ.
>
> It is already well known, that any contradiction is equivalent to any other
> contradiction. But RP uses MOQ to expand that notion in such a way, that it
> is more useful to philosophers. Many philosophical problems have remained
> unsolved for centuries, because the academics researching them are stuck
> trying to define multiple nonrelativizably used predicates in terms of each
> other. They are doing this, because they don't have a coherent notion of
> "nonrelativizability". They'd probably do something more useful if they did.
>
> -Tuukka

Well, that sounds cool to me, even if I do not understand it.  Good
luck with your endeavors, I am sure I will learn something from them.
Just remember to write it up so that the regular person can understand
it.  Otherwise you will be living in a reality that nobody can relate
to :-).

Cheers,
Mark

> 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