A

MoQ Primer

(This is a living document.)

by Doug Renselle

based on Robert M. Pirsig's works

Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance,

Lila,

Subjects, Objects, Data, and Values,

v

Quantum Scihænce

 

Acronyms and symbols used in Quantonics' MoQ Primer:

AQ	- Actualized Quanton(s)	Students of Quantonics may find it useful to visit these references: Acronyms Coined Terms Is English Language SOMitic? Investigating Some English Language Problems Quantonics English Language Problematics (QELP) Quantonics English Language Remediation (QELR)
DQ	- Dynamic Quality
h-bar	- Least quantum action unit; h
ISMs	- Realism, Idealism, Empiricism, Positivism, etc.
MoQ	- Metaphysics of Quality (Pirsig)
MoQ I	- Same as MoQ
MoQ II	- Mechanics of Quanta (classical quantum science)
n¤nMoQ	- N¤nMechanics of Quanta (Bohmian quantum science)
O	- Object (substance, matter)
Q	- Quality
R	- Reality
S	- Subject (nonsubstance, mind)
SE (SÆ)	- Special Event (view as a quantum pr¤cess)
SQ	- Static Quality (See QTP.)
SODV	- Subjects, Objects, Data, & Values
SOM	- Subject-Object Metaphysics
SPoV	- Static Pattern of Value (See QTP.)
UQ	- Unactualized Quanton(s) (See fluxors. See fuzzons.)
ZMM	- Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance
v	- [in] Interrelationship(s) [with]

 

Definition of MoQ - What is MoQ?

Ÿ MoQ is Robert M. Pirsig's Metaphysics of Quality, a new philosophy which he invented.
Ÿ MoQ is a way of examining Reality, which defines Quality (Q) as an analog of Reality (R).
Ÿ MoQ is many truths and their concomitant many contexts.

Ÿ MoQ is about complements among many truths (i.e., complementary interrelationships)

        (vis-à-vis SOM's opposites within a single context and truth).
Ÿ MoQ is an in-finite model of Reality.
Ÿ MoQ is Reality = Value = Quality, and Quality is absolute

(Vis-à-vis:

 SOM says Truth is absolute and quality is relative,

 MoQ says Quality is absolute and truth is relative. See: "Lightning hits!" from ZMM,
in The Birth of SOM).

Ÿ MoQ is Reality = Value = Quality divided into:

1.  the emerging definable part that we know and call Static Quality (SQ), and
2.  the describable, but undefinable, limitless and unknown part we call Dynamic Quality (DQ).

Ÿ MoQ is R = Q = DQ v SQ where SQ divides into four layers of Static Patterns of Value (SPoVs):

Here, we use the symbol v to mean, "in interrelationships with."

v intends to show that DQ interpenetrates and commingles SQ.

v also intends to show that DQ commingles the SPoVs, i.e., all of what we know.

So, R = Q =

DQ
  v                               Moral Code 1 governs DQSQ Interrelationships
SQ =

1. Intellectual SPoVs
         v                              Moral Code 2 governs IntellectualSocial
2. Social SPoVs
         v                              Moral Code 3 governs SocialBiological
3. Biological SPoVs
         v                              Moral Code 4 governs BiologicalInorganic
4. Inorganic SPoVs
         v                              Moral Code 5 governs InorganicChaos
5. Chaos

Ÿ MoQ is DQ imposing change on SQ.

Ÿ MoQ is SQ resisting DQ's imposed change.

Ÿ MoQ is SQ latching new emerged patterns of value.

Ÿ MoQ is SQ's SPoVs evolving and emerging in an unending change-latch loop.

Ÿ MoQ is:

Static Quality

                                                                                               

...inorganicinventingbiologicalinventingsocial inventingintellectualinventing...

                                                                                                

      emersion immersionemersion immersion emersion immersion  emersion immersion 

                                                                                               

          emersion is DQ creating SQ————immersion is DQ discreating SQ

We see MoQ's Reality Loop from a different, rather omnifferent, perspective here. We see multiple loops of emersion then immersion then emersion... We see that MoQ's Reality Loops run and scale at all levels of SQ ubiquitously, asynchronously, and in parallel. Epiphanously we also conjur how MoQ hints here of macroscoopic quantum uncertainty! Doug - 8Feb2006. Take some timings to follow-up on macroscopic uncertainty!

---

Dynamic Quality

Description of MoQ - How can we describe MoQ?

Ÿ MoQ is one philosophical reality description of quantum science

Ÿ

 

Description of the undefinable part of MoQ -
How can we describe DQ, the n-spatial surface of DQ? How does Pirsig describe DQ?

Ÿ Awareness of Quality (Pirsig, p. 221, of ZMM, Bantam paperback.)

Ÿ Surprise

Ÿ The Edge of Now

Ÿ Direct Experience (Pirsig, p. 64 of Lila, Bantam hardbound)

Ÿ Pure Experience (Pirsig, p. 365 of Lila, Bantam hardbound)

Ÿ The Basic Flux of Experience (Pirsig, p. 365 of Lila, Bantam hardbound)

Ÿ Autonomic Consciousness

Ÿ Archetypal Change

Ÿ The Future Edge of Now

Ÿ The Quality Event (Pirsig, p. 215,224, of ZMM, Bantam paperback.)

Ÿ Pre-intellectual Reality (Pirsig, p. 222, of ZMM, Bantam paperback.)

Ÿ Pre-intellectual Awareness (Pirsig, p. 240, of ZMM, Bantam paperback.)

Ÿ Pre-intellectual Cutting Edge of Reality (Pirsig, p. 115, 143 of Lila, Bantam hardbound)

Ÿ Value, the Leading Edge of Reality (Pirsig, p. 255, of ZMM, Bantam paperback.)

Ÿ "Reality is always the moment of vision before the intellectualization takes place." P. 222, ZMM

Ÿ [That from which...] "...all intellectually identifiable things must emerge..." P. 222, ZMM

Ÿ Cutting Edge of Experience (Pirsig, p. 254, of ZMM, Bantam paperback.)

Ÿ [DQ...]"...Emerges as a[n inter]Relationship Between Man and His Experience." P. 222, ZMM

Ÿ Leading Edge Contains All the Infinite Possibilities of the Future (Pirsig, p. 255, ZMM)

Ÿ Where Absolutely All the Action Is (Pirsig, p. 254-5, of ZMM, Bantam paperback.)

Ÿ Nonintellectual Awareness (Pirsig, p. 221, of ZMM, Bantam paperback.)

Ÿ [Just before the...] Instant of Awareness (Pirsig, p. 221, of ZMM, Bantam paperback.)

Ÿ [Just before the...] Instant of Vision (Pirsig, p. 221, of ZMM, Bantam paperback.)

Ÿ Cutting Edge of Time (Pirsig, p. 221, of ZMM, Bantam paperback.)

Ÿ Completely Simple (Pirsig, p. 115 of Lila, Bantam hardbound)

Ÿ Always New (Pirsig, p. 115 of Lila, Bantam hardbound)

Ÿ Spur of the Moment (Pirsig, p. 25, 142, 143 of Lila, Bantam hardbound)

In summary, Pirsig describes DQ perhaps best on page 116 of Lila, thus:  

The Hot Stove

"The negative esthetic quality of the hot stove in the earlier example was now given some added meaning by a static-Dynamic division of Quality. When the person who sits on the stove first discovers his low-Quality situation, the front edge of his experience is Dynamic. He does not think, "This stove is hot," and then make a rational decision to get off. A "dim perception of he knows not what" gets him off Dynamically."

 

Site Author's Caveat: The above described view of DQ is anthropocentric. Realize that DQ is in all of Reality and all of Reality is in DQ. In other words, MoQThink and Quantonics Thinking ask us to think cosmocentrically or multiverse-centrically. Also note that SOM's classical mechanics is incapable of describing any instantaneous, synchronized, coherent communication to one's entire physical system to act without a "rational decision." Quantum mechanics is capable of describing this DQ awareness and subsequent action. See our review of the Rainbow and the Worm, by Dr. Mae-Wan Ho of Open University, Milton Keynes, GB. Rhett Savage recommends this book and other similar ones at his site in our Quantum Links list. Read it if you can. It is simply excellent!

ISMs & MoQ

Ÿ Pirsig's MoQ says that the ISMs are spawn of 25 centuries of SOM. (See SOM Primer.)

Ÿ SOM incorrectly divided reality into Subject and Object, i.e., into not-substance and substance.

Ÿ This incorrect (one example of this incorrectness is how it disagrees with much more quantum gnosis, wisdom of ancients AKA Sophia's topos) division of reality generated a plethora of attempts to explain reality in terms of either Subject or Object or both Subject and Object (in some cases neither).

Ÿ SOM's inherent incapability to provide a coherent description of reality is perhaps its greatest failure.

Ÿ MoQ unifies Subject and Object in its Static Quality division of reality by creating one class of stuff (the known, what we know, what we stereotypically recognize) called Static Patterns of Value or SPoVs.

Ÿ The Subject-Object unification is powerful:  it subsumes SOM and its plethora of ISMs into a sub-category of quasi-obsolete truths—rigid SPoVs whose usefulness diminishes rapidly as we enter the third millennium and the age of quantum science and its parent philosophy, the MoQ. It urges all advanced and adept thinkers to see our world as flux and fluxings' dynamic everywhere~included~middle~associativityings as real. We gain all flux pattern~inclusive quantons as open and stochastic interrelationshipings, v, and we forgo anti-subjective closed objects as propertyesque stoppably state-ic. Doug - 22Jan2008.

The Birth of MoQ

Ÿ Officially, Pirsig's MoQ was born in late 1991 upon publication of Lila.

Ÿ MoQ incubated in Pirsig's mind for decades prior to its birth.

Ÿ The foundation for MoQ was laid in his famous 1974 publication,
Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.

MoQ Thinking — MoQThink

Ÿ Pattern Thought

Ÿ MoQ says the actual part of Reality—our known world—composes Static^{be careful} Patterns of Value or SPoVs.

Ÿ SPoVs compose one of the two divisions of the MoQ:  the division called Static Quality, or SQ.

Ÿ This axiom unifies what SOM calls Subjects and Objects into one class of things:  SPoVs.

Ÿ Thus, MoQThink is Pattern Thought—it is thinking about SPoVs—it is not thinking about Subjects and/or Objects. (SOMThink is thinking about Subjects and/or Objects! SOMThink is substance-think. MoQThink is pattern-think in interrelationships with DQ. MoQThink = SPoVThink v DQ.)

Ÿ The other division of the MoQ is called Dynamic Quality. DQ represents the unknown.

Ÿ MoQ tells us that DQ creates all of what we know—DQ creates and emerges SQ.

Ÿ MoQThink is cognition that SQ's change-resistant SPoVs continuously (Pirsig's 'continuous' is classical; quantum reality, of which MoQ is a philosophical modaling, requires that we replace 'continuous' with 'quantal' - 8Feb2006 - Doug. Quantal change enables countless quantum miracles, including: posentropy (Maxwell's classically lossy entropy gradients), zeroentropy (quantum real adiabaticity and perpetual motion; lossless energy transactions: Rolf Landauer's lossless reversible memory read-write cycles, cpu clocks which are lossless, etc.), negentropy (quantum real free energy; gainful energy transactions: sonoluminescence, etc.), and mixed entropy (pos, zero, neg combinations)...) interrelate co-within and under the influence of DQ's unending change-insistence.

Ÿ MoQThink asks us to see, intuit, and re-cognize that Subjects and Objects are not divisions of Reality, but they are of the same class:  Static Patterns of Value.

Ÿ MoQThink asks SOMites who want to learn to be MoQites to limit their use of words like Subject and Object to training sessions where MoQites are helping SOMites to evolve and emerge their SOMThink into MoQThink.

 

Ÿ Quantonic Thinking — A Quantum Science Dual

Ÿ Complementarity — In quantum science interrelationships among con(m)jugate forms of reality are said to be complementary. The best known example is quantum wave-particle duality. In quantum science wave and particle manifestations of reality are complementary. See 'conjugate.'

Niels Bohr said that if his peers understood complementarity they would be able to communicate unambiguously. He hoped his peers could do this and permit a common view of particle-wave duality. (See page 10 of Pirsig's SODV paper.)

In quantum sciences' realities (there are many interpretations, i.e., Many Truths, of these realities; you may see multiple versions here:  Quantum Interpretations) we may perceive a very similar dual to that of MoQ Reality.

MoQ describes a reality where DQ creates, discreates, and changes MoQ's actual part of Reality called SQ via QEs' actions (quantum~fluxings' phase~encodings; see fermionta). We can show this symbolically like this

i.e., DQDQ, DQSQ, SQDQ, and SQSQ:

     DQ                                                                       DQ: Dynamic Quality

DQvSQ                                                                   SQ: Static Quality

     SQ

which provide for action like this:
DQQEsSQ (See the MoQ I Reality Loop)      QEs: Quality Events

Quantum science describes a reality that uses interrelationships among unactualized quantons (UQs) and actualized quantons (AQs) to create, discreate, and change reality via the action of special events (SEs). We can show this symbolically like this

i.e., UQUQ, UQAQ (say spin +1/2?), AQUQ (say spin -1/2?), and AQAQ:

     UQs                                                                       UQs: Unactualized Quantons

UQsvAQs                                                                 AQs: Actualized Quantons

      AQs

which provide for action like this:  
UQsSEsAQs (See the MoQ II Reality Loop)    SEs: Special Events

You can see the obvious duality which exists twixt the two reality descriptions.

In Quantonics we say that DQ and SQ are complementary and we show that interrelationship thus: quanton(DQ,SQ). Similarly we say that UQ and AQ are complementary which we show thus: quanton(UQ,AQ).

As Niels Bohr conjectured, being able to think of reality as complementarity is extraordinarily helpful. Indeed we have shown that MoQ's complementary view of reality is a vivid dual of quantum science's complementary view of reality.

One of The Quantonics Society's goals is to help Earth sentients to gradually convert from SOMThink to MoQThink.

Within this web site, and in Quantonics, we refer to MoQThink alternatively as quantonic thinking. Also in this site we wish to refer, as our need arises, to Pirsig's MoQ also as MoQ I (the Metaphysics of Quality), and quantum science's dual as MoQ II (the Mechanics of Quanta). Henceforth both MoQ and MoQ I shall mnemonically represent Pirsig's Metaphysics of Quality. MoQ II is reserved uniquely for quantum science, the Mechanics of Quanta.

Ÿ Quanton — In Quantonics we call a(ny) complementary interrelationship(s) a quanton. We also use quanton as an operator to symbolically express a(ny) specific interrelationship(s), e.g., quanton(wave,particle) which is a particular quantonic interrelationship and quanton(DQ,SQ) which is a quantonic interrelationship of all of Reality's DQ in interrelationships with all of Reality's SQ.

Ÿ Logic — In Quantonics we want to expand and evolve our thinking from the current SOMThink of mostly Boolean, distributive logic. We want to learn to think based on the MoQ axiom of Many Truths. This requires expanded logic, including: Boolean, Quantum, and Galois Groups (GGLogic or gaggles), etc. Quantum logic already exposes non-distributive 'isles of truth,' which you may see graphically represented here:  Quantum Logic MoQ.

Ÿ Completeness & Consistency — In Quantonics we must learn to think about completeness in a manner entirely different from the current Western SOMThink. SOMThink teaches us that we may possess absolute knowledge of any system. That's how we hear our great thinkers delude themselves about their goals of GUTs and ToEs (Grand Unifying Theories and Theories of Everything).

But we cannot do that! Why? Because of this:
                         quanton(completeness,consistency).
This is a complementary interrelationship and an uncertainty interrelationship.

A complete GUT or ToE states all truths about the system. Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems show that no system may be complete without being simultaneously wholly inconsistent. See the Decidable Gödel meme at The Memes. Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems show that the more complete a system is, the more inconsistent it must be, and vice versa.

MoQThink teaches us that there are islands of local, partial completeness which MoQ II calls 'isles of truth.' It teaches us that the quantonic interrelationships among these isles of truth may and often do appear inconsistent when viewed from within an isle of truth. At the same time the quantonic interrelationships within an isle of truth may be wholly consistent at the expense of its own incompleteness.

Ÿ Uncertainty — MoQThink tells us to forego SOMThink's absolute truth. Instead, accept MoQ's axiom of Many Truths. Quantum science tells us that islands of truth within Reality have quantonic interrelationships with the unknown and with other islands of truth in Reality. Quantum science shows us this unambiguously. All of actualized reality or what MoQ calls SQ is built from aggregations of atomic and subatomic quantons. These quantons experience nonlocal and superluminal interrelationships with other quantons continuously (not in a classical sense—the quantum continuum is granular with action quanta in h-bar increments), guaranteeing statistical uncertainty, at all levels of reality — n¤t just subatomic, in outcomes of these interrelationships.

Ÿ Locality — MoQThink teaches us to accept quantum science's dictum and empirical evidence of non-local effects among entangled quantons.

SOMThink teaches us that Objects (particles) may be isolated and studied 'objectively' without any non-local conditions affecting the outcome of any study. This, in general, is n¤t true. Our SOM particulate pattern world deludes us that it is true, but it is n¤t true—in general—in the quantonic pattern domain of our quantum world.

The SOM particulate world consists of local and isolable parts of actual Reality. The quantum world consists of non-local and non-isolable parts (quantons) of whole Reality.

Ÿ Separability and individuation — MoQThink teaches us that all of DQvSQ. It teaches us that all of the quantum_unknownvquantum_known.

SOMThink teaches us that any system may be analyzed into separable, individuated parts or particles. Each of those parts has properties which when aggregated fully describes the entire system—and then the system itself separable and individuated. This is classical SOM analysis.

MoQThink teaches us that n¤ system or part of a system may be separated from the rest of Reality. Parts of Reality are in Reality and Reality is in all parts. MoQ and quantum science Reality dictate quantonic interrelationships among all parts of Reality. Gravity is our easiest and best exemplar.

Ÿ Superluminality — In 1934, Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen tried to prove, via a gedanken experiment, that quantum science was incomplete because it allows action-at-a-distance. Their argument was that it allowed action-at-a-distance (superluminality) but provided no means for it. They said there had to be hidden variables or something equivalent to allow for superluminality. The absence of means for superluminality as part of the theory of quantum science meant to EPR therefore, that quantum science was incomplete. Of course superluminality was impossible in their (SOM) reasoning! Why? Because it was "unreasonable." Actually the EPR experiment turned against them. Quantum scientists began to see that superluminality, implied by quantum theory, might be real.

Of course today we know superluminality is REAL! Experiments from the 1970s through now, mid-1998 prove the existence of superluminality. Search on Anton Zeilinger and Nicolas Gisin, and see: Anton Zeilinger's Homepage  Also see Shimony, Clauser, etc.

MoQThink asks us to not do what EPR did. Don't allow your legacy-addled mindset to put blinders on your thinking. Do not assume that anything is unreasonable.

So, MoQThink teaches us that parts of reality are non-local, non-separable, non-individuistic, and may possess superluminal connections.

That is how we need to think for the next millennium, and not think in the legacy-addled mindset of SOM which hindered EPR's abilities to re-cognize Reality.

Ÿ Continua — TBD.

MoQ Importance to the Future

Ÿ A New Philosophy — As we have seen above, perhaps the largest importance to the future is that MoQThink subsumes SOMThink and unchains us from the legacy of SOM.

 

Ÿ Newtonian Thought — AKA SOMThink is inadequate for the next millennium. It is based upon the substance based Subject-Object schism born 2500 years ago at the hands of Parmenides, Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle.

 

Classical science born of Newton's herculean efforts works in the macro-world, but it is wholly inadequate for the quantum world. Classical science too, is substance-based, particulate and a SOM legacy-addled trap.

 

Ÿ Quantum Thought — Broke the chains and mind bondage of SOMThink. Quantum thought supplements the MoQ philosophy with the quanton and the meme of quantonic interrelationships.

 

Quantum thought is science and MoQ is philosophy. More, MoQ is the philosophy which aligns almost perfectly with quantum science. Both agree for the first time in the history of humankind that both philosophers and scientists may talk in ~unambiguous remediated language and memes about Reality (due quantum uncertainty, our communications will always have some ambiguity; classical science's goal of total absence of ambiguity in logic, reason and work product is a non achievable mission - 31Oct2002-Doug). MoQThink asks us to con(m)join the two for Millennium III.

 

Ÿ Millennium III — Imagine the progress now and for the next 1000 years with MoQ and quantum science as adjunct partners in the never-ending search for a better understanding of Reality.

 

SOM’s rise and fall provoked emergence of both quantum science and the MoQ.

 

Pirsig's MoQ as an adjunct partner of quantum science is a pragmadigm ascension for Millennium III.

 

Thank you for reading,

 

Doug Renselle.