Return to Previous Page                                                                              Return to the Arches

Anthony,

Here are my comments on the student's answers to the questions. I hope this is useful to you and them. If they have computers, it would be easier for them to view this table that way. If you wish, I can put this on the Quantonics site for observation there.

Best!

Doug Renselle.


 

QUESTION

1

QUESTION

2

QUESTION

3

QUESTION

4

QUESTION

5

QUESTION

6

QUESTIONS:

What do you think are the three most important differences between MoQ and SOM? Given the content of the Loyola video - what do you think are the similarities among: Loyola, Deming, the Brujo (from Lila), and Pirsig? Do you think it is even remotely possible that Quality is Moral? If so, how do we measure the moral nature of Quality? Given the content of the video, do you think you are living or dying? Given the content of the video, is the universe evolving or not?

STUDENT -

REVIEWER

· ·

ANSWERS

TO 1

· ·

ANSWERS

TO 2

· ·

ANSWERS

TO 3

· ·

ANSWERS

TO 4

· ·

ANSWERS

TO 5

· ·

ANSWERS

TO 6

· ·

Student 1:

SOM views the world as independent of the viewer, while MoQ defines it by the interaction (Zen uses the reflection of the moon in water as a symbol) with the viewer. There are no other differences. They all tried to destroy social patterns by intellect. Or morality has quality? Or assume the quality of morality? This is what you have to ask. Pirsig does it by evolution. Both - nothing to do with the video. That will depend on whether we all see the interview.

Reviewer Comment:

In the reviewer's opinion, this is an excellent answer. Pirsig himself probably would answer question 1 in a similar way. There are many differences, but they all emerge from the two fundamental ones stated here. Agree. It is axiomatic in Pirsig's MoQ that Quality is (iso) Moral. To nit pick, Pirsig probably would say Quality has morality. I think he would intend: "Quality is co-within and interpenetrates Morality." No, that would be like a redundancy, "Or assume the quality of quality?" MoQ is unification of dynamis and stasis with former reigning latter. Thus, evolution is an intrinsic. In the video, reviewer intended to illustrate the either/or "versus" of SOM. Practically speaking, cellular apoptosis guarantees both. And there are other metaphors perhaps even more affective. Forgive me, I do not understand this answer.

Student 2:

Truth is at the apex of SOM. Good/Quality/Value are at the apex of MoQ. SOM is confrontational whereas MoQ is intuitive? SOM is the status quo - MoQ isn't. Outsiders demonstrating dynamic quality finding themselves immersed in static institutions where the status quo reigned. Yes, it picks the best way to act. Is it not undefinable? Both. Given SPoVs then the universe is evolving toward consciousness (everything evolves toward consciousness)

Reviewer Comment:

Agree, given student 1's answer and reviewer's comment. I would use the word pioneers instead of 'outsiders.' J I realize I used that term in the video. This answer impresses me for its nexus to quantum science. Units of least action are essentially Planck quanta. Change, resulting from the ubiquitous Planck quanta, is a metaphorical identity to Pirsig's DQ. [Pirsig 1] No, see Pirsig's own definition in the footnote to your answer to question 3. Agree. Note that MoQ answers "Yes!" to this class of SOM question, and SOM must choose one or the other. (I.e., one global truth in SOM vis-à-vis many truths in MoQ.) Again, using a quantum science metaphor, the reviewer believes reality is a quanton. Quantons are the most primitive SPoVs in the universe, and the universe is one great quanton. Now given that, the reviewer believes that all quantons are aware. Scaled awareness we view as consciousness. Are quantons aware? Do photons make decisions when they run into some other class of atomic or subatomic quanton?

Student 3:

Nonmaterial accepted as reality; Relations understood as part of reality; ability of reality to advance with ideas. Ideas conflicting with social context and giving perceived threats to stability. Morality [is] a type of quality. Similar purpose may be served in different ways at different 'levels.' No answer. No answer. No answer.

Reviewer Comment:

Yes, restated:
S-O dichotomy; interpenetration and co-within-it-ness unify DQ & SQ; DQ as change itself and SQ as DQ's agent of change.
Yes, the cultural, corporate, organization, etc. immune system shooting the pioneers. Moral SQ is an agent of change. Immoral SQ (exclusive SQ) is not. See my other comments above. Your comment about 'levels' jibes with Pirsig's levels of moral codes. No comment. No comment. No comment.

Student 4:

No answer. They are all people who wish us to understand what they deem to be the most fundamental factors concerning mankind. They do not allow us not to take notice of them. They are fanatical. Pirsig is possibly the least self-involved, who sits back and lets his ideas go and lead their own lives in other people's worlds. No, because you have to apply moral perceptions to a problem to be "moralistic" hence totally throwing DQ out the window. No answer. Neither. No.

Reviewer Comment:

No comment. Great answer! Clearly Pirsig knows semantics of insanity. Perceptive answer assuming you aver the staticity of moral law. No comment. See other reviewer comments above. See other reviewer comments above.

Student 5:

MoQ: new system
SOM: old system
MoQ: dynamic
SOM: static
MoQ: liberating
SOM: stuck
Insightful, persevering, courageous, awake,… Morality arises from DQ. Tends toward, "the good"… Just alive? It appears to be evolving.

Reviewer Comment:

Good! Yes, and enlightened vis-à-vis competing Homo sapiens' SPoVs in their particular epochs. I would say that SPoVs we call moral codes arise, evolve, and devolve from SQ in interrelationships with DQ. Pirsig's answer is, "In units of better…the fundamental unit of ethics." See footnotes. Recall that Pirsig's MoQ change is not SOM analytic. See reviewer comments above. Agree.

Student 6:

I cannot yet provide my own answer to this question, only the answers given to me in the presentation. New ideas resisted by established social patterns. No - morals are a recent creation within human society and are founded on notions of truths and falsehoods. You can't. Both. I believe the universe to be evolving regardless of the video.

Reviewer Comment:

Judicious but not very adventurous answer. J Agree. See reviewer comments above. In units of "better." Agree. Ha! Agree.

Student 7:

No answer. I am not sure. However, it has summarized Pirsig's concept in relation with ZMM. Quality is moral, when moral discipline is practiced entirely. From my understanding, moral measurement comes from whichever the religious believe you are in, e.g., Buddhism, Christianity. Absolutely, by individual measure. We are still living. Not, it is just localised or a small group of people are in to it.

Reviewer Comment:

No comment. OK. It sounds as though you may be an agent of exclusive SQ. J

This is very good. You appear to say that we determine units of "better" locally by squeezed or limited contexts. Very quantum! J

Many truths to you my friend!

See reviewer comments above. Yours is a SOM view of the universe within my interpretation of your answer.

Student 8:

MoQ: universe is made of value
SOM: universe is made of substance
MoQ: quality is highest value
SOM: truth is highest value
MoQ: Quality (known & unknown)
SOM: Rationality (stability of scientific method)
All recognized during their life. Yes. Don't know. Probably we don't. Living, but apparently would live better if rejected SOM and adopted MoQ. Yes (constant state of dynamism).

Reviewer Comment:

Excellent! Your answer provides an opportunity to introduce some "better" terms than I used in the video.
Using SOM lingo, reality is both actual (SQ) and nonactual (DQ). In the video, I used the terms either real or unreal. Saying actuality arises (on quantum measurement º Quality Event) from nonactuality is the same thing as saying SQ arises from DQ on Quality Events (which occur at Planck rates).
OK, but there is more here than just that. For me this is the correct MoQ answer. See reviewer comments above. See other comments. I, admittedly, am a proselyte of MoQ. I believe what you said is true. I spend most of my life trying to lend additional credence to that belief. Agree.

Student 9:

MoQ: Unitary
SOM: Dialectical
MoQ: Potentialities in the inorganic?
SOM: Creative middle (produces a dynamic)
MoQ: Dissolves difference.
SOM: Promotes difference
Loyola was concerned with God & the soul. Deming with industry, cash & kudos! Galileo's theory was empirically derived. Pirsig's is an idea which belongs to a pseudo-religious framework. (Science/religion can't be conflated as their designs, purposes differ. See Wittgenstein, "that of which we cannot speak, etc.") No. We can't. Given Schrödinger's cat, I am potentially both! How could I be one or the other since that is very SOM!? (Ha - can't escape it!) It is changing.

Reviewer Comment:

I think you are a philosophy professor! Question. If SOM is dialectical then why is MoQ not rhetorical? I think Pirsig might say there are potentialities in all changes to all SPoVs. I do not understand your, "creative middle." Perhaps we may meet face-to-face someday, and discuss your answers? I agree, except that for me Pirsig's MoQ is The New Philosophy for Millennium III. Pirsig handles your Wittgenstein quote nicely, I think, with the ineffable nature of DQ. See his SODV and Northrop quotes, e.g., "Northrop's name for Dynamic Quality is 'the undifferentiated aesthetic continuum.'" See reviewer comments above. See reviewer comments above. Great answer! You are a quantum philosopher! J Agree.

Student 10:

MoQ: value driven
SOM: fact driven
MoQ: intuitive
SOM: analytic
All prepared to follow what they believe to be right. No. We can't; and why would we want to? No answer. Yes.

Reviewer Comment:

Good! Yes, but more too. See reviewer comments above. Pirsig says we can, but only locally. Because we need to adhere a culture that is new to us when we enter it, not the other way around. No comment. Agree.

Student 11:

SOM posits an objective reality independent of our perceptions. MoQ seems to imply that this is not so. SOM relies on cause and effect. MoQ uses relationships as a way of explaining phenomena. Paradigm shifters? If quality is intrinsic to the universe - not subjective - then it cannot be moral any more than a rock can be. No answer. Both. It is changing. Entropy is increasing.

Reviewer Comment:

Yes, excellent. I like the term 'interrelationships' better than a more SOMese 'relationships.' I adopted this after reading Fritjof Capra's, The Tao of Physics, and a few of Poincaré's works. See Fritjof's chapter on 'interpenetration.' Perhaps the best, most succinct answer! See reviewer comments above. No comment. Agree.

That is archaic classical SOM science you propound. J Most quantum scientists of today's currency will tell you about three classes of entropy:

  • negative
  • zero
  • positive

Negative entropy is the stuff of classical science. Quantum science adds the other two. Read Mae-wan Ho's, the Rainbow and the Worm, for contemporary concepts of the latter two. Mae-wan is at the Open University in Milton Keynes. Her discussion on zero entropy process will simply amaze you. They are quantum coherent processes.

Student 12:

MoQ bases all knowledge upon an undefined quality, and states that, "truth is a subspecies of Quality," while SOM would regard quality as a subspecies of truth even if this is not so clear in all traditional philosophic theories. Old philosophers tend to equal 'the good' and 'the perfections' with 'the truth' in some cases. They all follow dynamic quality and confront it with static patterns of value (social). From some point of view, morality would be a (basically) static pattern of value (learned). It's not easy, given that we have to deal with an UNDEFINED quality, when it seems that the nature or origins of duty can be equally difficult to define. No answer. No answer.

Reviewer Comment:

Undefined DQ, not undefined quality. Agree with the rest. They confront static social patterns with new intellectual patterns. Yes, two views: latched SPoVs of moral codes as static morality vis-à-vis DQ's absolute imposition of "better" iterations of change on SQ as dynamic morality. I think you are referring to Pirsig's discussion in ZMM on the birth of SOM. Duty to the sophists was aretê (Greek virtue is 'aretê,' where 'ê' is eta, while Greek excellence is 'aritos.' We can find no Greek alpha-rho-eta... words in our Pocket OxUP.) or excellence. IMO, Pirsig made it easy for those of us who want to be known by the appellation MoQite. No comment. No comment.

Student 13:

MoQ recognizes value, SOM does not. SOM creates explanatory problems which MoQ dissolves. MoQ accommodates the unknown. They produced intellectual patterns of value which challenged static pattern of social quality. Quality is a synonym for Moral. Experience. Living in the respect that: am responding to dynamic quality. It is evolving towards Dynamic Quality.

Reviewer Comment:

Excellent! Excellent! Excellent! Yes, with the qualification of ability to distinguish "better." See reviewer comments above. I believe it is evolving toward ultimate understanding of self.

Notes:
Pirsig 1 -
"When inorganic patterns of reality create life the Metaphysics of Quality postulates that they've done so because it's 'better' and that this definition of 'betterness'-this beginning response to Dynamic Quality-is an elementary unit of ethics upon which all right and wrong can be based."

P. 157-of-410 of Lila, hardbound 1st edition, Bantam Books, 1991. Students please note: The Planck least unit of action ~ Pirsig's elementary unit of ethics. Note also, that outcome of a Quality Event values preconditions for the next ethical unit of moral behavior.
Return to Q&A.


Students, the answers above are based upon my own knowledge and interpretations of Pirsig's work, philosophy, quantum science, etc. As I said in the video, I am (we are) finite intellect. You must take my comments seriously, but with a grain of salt. Pirsig had no direct part in any of the comments I provided. They are my comments and you must read them under the stigma of that caveat.

Many truths to you,

Doug Renselle
11Feb1999
 
Send questions or comments to:
email: NOFLAMEqtx{at}earthlink{dot}netNOSPAM
site:    http://www.quantonics.com/
The Quantonics Society
484 E. Carmel Dr. #353
Carmel, IN 46082
USA
1-317-THOUGHT

Return to Previous Page                                                                              Return to the Arches