Subject: Re: [Quantonics}: Roger's latest input.
Date: Mon, 06 Sep 1999 09:36:32 -0700
From: Doug Renselle <NOFLAMEqtx{at}earthlink{dot}netNOSPAM
Organization: Quantonics, Inc. and The Quantonics Society
To: quantonics email list post <quantonics@topica.com

(To post to our email list, you must subscribe. See instructions on our top page.)
(Minor edits, links, 'qfe' (Quantonic font 'equals')substitution in place of classical '=,'
spelling, who wrote/writes, etc.)

Quantonics Email List Message

 

Hello Dan and Quantos,

Great post, Dan!

See remarks embedded below -

Dan Glover wrote:

Quantonics Email List Message

Doug wrote:

If you have any MoQ Assumptions re: Quality Events,
Interrelationships, etc., send them to our list for addition
to our next group of MoQ Assumptions.

I think 4, 5, and 6 are pretty much direct quotes of
Pirsig. Except for grammatical syntax, form, etc. they
should pretty much hold. Anyone disagree?

Rog wrote:

I agree with all three assumptions, but reserve judgement on the
relationship between the assumptions. Both are essential in the MoQ.

Dan writes:

I agree pretty much with these assumptions too.

Doug wrote:

How are we doing on our list of SOM-MoQ compatible
assumptions, and our list of SOM-MoQ incompatible
assumptions? Beth asked me to tell her a few, and I was
able to reel off a bunch of incompatible ones (e.g.,
quantumesque ones), but I could not think quickly of any
compatible ones. So those, to me, would be most
interesting. (Dan, we're back to arguing for/against SOTAQI
(?) again. :) Do you remember any of Bo's heuristics on
SOM-MoQ compatibles?)

Dan writes:

I've yet to really grasp Bodvar's essential heuristics of SOTAQI and I suspect
he himself has difficulty as well. Just 2 days ago Bo wrote and invited me to
be part of this month's discussion in TLS, which happens to be on just this
subject. I find such coincidences fascinating and wonder if it is coincidental
at all. I will see if anything interesting comes of our discussion and share
it, if you wish.

Doug responds to Dan:

Dan,

I share this same paraphenomenon.

Please share any comments on SOTAQI (S-O Thinking as Quality Intellect). It
may/probably does affect our MoQ Assumptions.

Doug.

Dan writes:

Compatible MOQ-SOM assumptions... that is tough. In re reading Zen and the Art
of Motorcyle Maintenance, I came across this:

"A person who sees Quality and feels it as he works is a person who cares."
(Chap. 24)

Doug responds to Dan:

Dan,

I consider this of high/extraordinary value.

Caveat: If 'care' is SOMitic it becomes care vs. not-care, a SOM dichotomy
which I am sure you do not intend.

However if care is a quanton, it gains more of a Quality sense. E.g.:

care quanton(nonlocal,local)
care quanton(complete,consistent)
care quanton(more,less)
care quanton(DQ,SQ)
etc.

Care then becomes MoQ 'choice' (based on nonpreferential preconditions) at a
next unit of ethical behavior.

One reservation is your statement's anthropocentricity. As I queried before:

Do hummingbirds care?
Do butterflies care?
Does water care? (I am thinking your water meditation.)
Do photons care?
Do quarks care?

If these forms of SQ care, what is more proemial which allows them to care (make
not SOMitic, but Quantonic choices)?

If we (anthros) are aggregates of four SPoV levels, does massively parallel,
multi-Planck rate caring at each level commingle into net 'care' for each
individuistic anthro? Or are all anthros cowithin a multiverse of 'care?' (My
answer is, "Yes!") What is 'care' starting to sound like?

So you may see how I arrive at:

1. Flux is crux. (DQ/absolute change is crux.)
2. Flux is aware. (Related to Stein's issues of 'interaction.')
3. Flux can transition unlatched <-> latched. (ontology)

Finally, all measurables (SQ) are quantons of flux: quanton(DQ,SQ).

Doug.

Dan writes:

In some fashion, there must be assumptions of care built into both
metaphysical systems, and indeed all metaphysical systems. It seems to me that
if we discover compatible MOQ-SOM assumptions, these assumptions are what we
might term 'universal' in scope, working now, in all times past, and in all
future times. To care seems like one of these universal assumptions necessary
for us to become aware of preconditional values in everyday life.

Doug responds to Dan:

Dan,

Are opposition, contradiction, disjunction, wrath, hate, etc. caring?

Does SOM care? Or does SOM control?

Can we base care on S-O schisms? Is SOM 'care' distinct from MoQ 'care?'

Doug.

Dan writes:

Can we build assumptions around caring? Or is caring implicit in all
assumptions? What does it mean to care? I cannot answer that question, try as
I might. I might say caring means to give full attention, but why should this
be so? In our value-centered universe, caring about value creates reality.
This leads me to believe there are no universal assumptions apart from our
caring. This strikes me as very preposterous and almost incomprehensible in
subject/object metaphysics but that is simply because it has been covered up.
It's there though, implicitly, and perhaps by becoming aware of caring we are
led into ever more expanding realms of metaphysical understandings of reality.
It is not what we care about at all, or who it is who cares. Caring is what
it's all about, I suppose.

Doug responds to Dan,

Dan,

I think we can all benefit from a hiatus now to answer your questions above and
consider issues which arose in Steve's post too.

I hope our whole list will jump in for next six days and participate.

Mtty,

Doug.

Best wishes

Dan

Quantonics Email List Message


"Truth is always a DQ-changeable Static Pattern of Value."

DQ: Dynamic Quality

Doug Renselle, July 20, 1998.

 

Quantonics Email List Message