|DQ||- Dynamic Quality|
|MoQ||- Metaphysics of Quality (Pirsig)|
|MoQite||- An adherent of Pirsig's MoQ philosophy|
|O||- Object (SOM's substantial reality; AKA matter)|
|QE||- Quality Event|
|SQ||- Static Quality|
|SODV||- Subjects, Objects, Data, & Values|
|SOM||- Subject-Object Metaphysics|
|SPoV||- Static Pattern of Value|
|S||- Subject (SOM's insubstantial reality; AKA mind)|
|VES||- Vacuum Energy Space (DQ metaphor, from high energy physics)|
|ZMM||- Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance|
This page contains detail regarding language and how it relates to SOM, MoQ, and new science's quantum world. It shows Quantonic views about how all three topics interrelate, given Pirsig's own words in ZMM, Lila, and SODV. You will note a dual description here of a creation process which Pirsig discusses in SODV. We expanded somewhat on that description while supporting both quantum and VES metaphors.
In this discussion we use words 'quanton' and 'complement.' Complement also has linguistic forms of 'complementary,' and 'complementarity.' We assume a sense of complement which we intuit Niels Bohr used: particle and wave are a 'complementary' omni-contextual interrelationship. That interrelationship may be shown thus: quanton(particle,wave), which shows an interrelationship but not any omni-contexture of a quanton. We also appropriated a symbol to use for this interrelationship, a wingdings font lower case 'v.' It looks like this: . It is desirable because it appears as a two-dimensional compass pointing in multiple directions. It is undesirable because it does not show omni-contexture of which true complementary interrelationships are capable. Thus our notation quanton(particle,wave) appears limited in its intrinsic dichotomy, which we know is untrue, generally, in quantum science. So we might express our same complementary interrelationship thus: particlewave, which illustrates (with imagination) all other potential omni-interrelationships which holistically inform all quantons.
We say means "...in omni-contextual interrelationships with..." We also refer to these as "Quantonic" interrelationships, from whence we get our definition of 'Quantonics:' Quantonics is a philosophy and science of complementary interrelationships.
In an unlimited reference domain of Reality we know:
Using this notation we may view Pirsig's Reality as one great quanton. At another extreme we may view Reality's most primal elements as its most fundamental and primitive of quantons. As we may choose to posit, Reality scales!
In excerpts below, please use our above definitions and heuristics
to interpret our text.
MoQ & Language
[Some of this is our opinion and conjecture (heuristics). A portion of this is pure Pirsig. Those of you well-read in Pirsig's works may easily distinguish them.]
Language is partial essence of Reality! At Reality's very most primal levels of SQ, language appears as what some of us see as 'quantum awareness' which is a precursor of various languages of MoQ's four SPoV levels. Each level of language SPoVs is more highly evolved than its predecessor.
(Using our heuristics from above, we assume most primal of quantons possess quantum awareness. [Note: Pirsig tells us each level of SPoV in SQ values its own language. We infer language, as do all non-exclusive SPoVs, evolves and was created and evolved from some primitive complement. Further, our axiomatic heuristics about 'awareness' arise from Pirsig quotes like these, "Quality is the event at which awareness of both subjects and objects (cite the both/and; S both/and O = SPoVs; pre-Lila/MoQ language) is made possible." Page 128 of ZMM Bantam paperback (and similar in SODV). And, "The MOQ starts with the source of undifferentiated perception itself as the ultimate reality." 23Feb1998 Pirsig letter to A. McWatt.])
Students of Quantonics will note that Doug has now, as of 2006, coined a term, a quantum memeo, for Pirsig's above "undifferentiated perception:" A quantum~both~and complementaroception. Doug - 21Nov2006.
But there is more to Reality than language SPoVs.
[According to MoQ...] Reality is DQ in interrelationships with SQ. Examples of those interrelationships are creation, change, discreation, etc. (See Reality Loops on this site.) We show this in Quantonics as - quanton(DQ,SQ). We also use notation like DQSQ. Our diamond symbol looks like a compass pointing in N,S,E,W directions, to show MoQ interrelationships are omni-contextual, not dichotomous.
(You can show 2+2 = 5 in some contrived context by placing a '1' above or below our compass which takes place of a conventional equal sign, e.g.:
We know SQ is latched SPoVs [which are created/changed/discreated co-within DQ] in interrelationships with other latched SPoVs, all of which is in interrelationships with DQ. These interrelationships result in temporary stasis, creation, change, and/or discreation of SPoVs in our known SQ. In MoQ we call each occurrence a Quality Event or QE.
In MoQ it is axiomatic: DQ is undefined. We can make inferences about SQ's interrelationships with DQ, but that's about it. All primary interrelationships among SPoVs in SQ are communication enablers of some sort, all of which we can lump into a category, 'language.'
Except for languages' quantum part, Pirsig tells us this fairly unambiguously. From careful and slightly extrapolated interpretation of SODV, we can infer he intuits some of languages' quantum part.
Languages' quantum part is crucial to a better philosophy of Reality. True coherent synchrony of musicians in groups, fishes avoiding threats, dancers in ballet, grebes mating, synchronous swimming, and body limb motion by absolute synchrony of locus-disparate cells may only be understood and explained using languages' quantum part. (For further discussion of quantum biology, and explanation of coherent quantum language communication, see our review of Mae-Wan Ho's, the Rainbow and the Worm, elsewhere on this site.)
All of these we cognize heuristically as, 'languages.' We assume quantum language subsumes each of our classical examples. Until recently, classically, we were unable to ken any quantum realm and its languages. Legacy SOM put blinders on us. We inherited another of SOM's great ills, a multitude of which we belabor ubiquitously on this site.
In our following discussion, let's use Figure 1 to imagine Quality Events as they occur:
|Unlatched Awareness||Latched Awareness|
Our bidirectional arrows represent changes or QEs in a better or h-bar granular Reality Loop. represents omni-contextual interrelationships and commingling between and among:
Since we cannot define DQ, we don't define it, but we feel an irresistible urge (as Pirsig did) to do so. We can try that as an exercise here. Let's just assume in DQ there are (commingling) complements to (and cowithin) what we know in SQ. I.e., let's assume complementary interrelationships among all SQ's SPoVs and SQ's (commingling) complement DQ. DQ's complementary omni-contextual interrelationships to SQ are complex, so a DQ-SQ mapping likely is not 1-1, or it might not even be a mapping but a kind of energy soup (AKA VES) interpenetrating SQ. Let's just assume for sake of discussion latched SPoVs which we recognize in SQ have unlatched complements in DQ. And, (this is a stretch, but it fits our understanding of quantum science) let's assume languages (latched communication SPoVs in SQ) have unlatched complements in DQ.
So in reality's beginning...was DQ with unlimited amounts of unlatched SPoVs (~energy soup, AKA VES). And these unlatched SPoVs possessed primal 'awareness.' A first QE was two (or a whole bunch of) unlatched SPoVs becoming mutually aware of each other, and by our assumed rules of undefined DQ, co-awareness was a precondition for co-aware unlatched SPoVs to latch (creation). A newly latched SPoV gains only a temporary foothold, because DQ relentlessly makes other (latched and) unlatched SPoVs 'aware' of any newly latched SPoV and induces mutation of any latched SPoV (change). (We skip a discussion of discreation, but you may wish to do it as an exercise. We assume a description of stasis is trivial.)
Ubiquitous QEs (see Reality Loops elsewhere on this site: MoQ I Reality Loop, MoQ II Reality Loop,, and Gen III Quantum Reality Loop), create other latched SPoVs. Their co-awareness (~quantum measurement) is a precondition of aggregation as more complex SPoVs. As these SPoVs change under pressure from DQ, their 'awareness' gains complexity and commences evolution to less primitive awareness, beginnings of Inorganic language. This evolution continues up MoQ's SPoV levels, and now we cognize its results anthropocentrically on Earth.
That's how we see it. That's our view of language evolution in MoQ.
Note: Language is clearly capable of evolution, we might even say it is intrinsically capable of evolution an active agent of its own successor(s). It is SPoV of second good, SQ, born and mutated via DQ. (As do all SPoVs, language may experience stasis and devolution, too, but remember, Pirsig tells us exclusive stasis is evil.)
By comparison, SOM is incapable of evolution! Why? It informs exclusive SQ. It is exclusive because of its axioms and unrelenting adherence to them:
(It is an illuminating and enlightening exercise to consider consequences of these assumptions and actual pragmatic effects of them on Western culture today and for Western culture's last ~2500 years.)
Sure, language can speak for SOM, but it can evolve to speak for MoQ, or any other philosophy we may invent.
But SOM cannot evolve. It is stuck. It is exclusive SQ. It pays unremitting allegiance to its founding axioms, axioms of exclusive SQ bound for extinction as current parent philosophy of Western culture. (Actually, it has already happened during Western culture's 20th century. Cultural Relativism, though chaotic and anarchic, beat SOM handily. Why? Because CR adopted change chaotic change as its absolute.) MoQites adhere ken SOM will not actually become extinct, but will be subsumed under MoQ.
SOM language's purpose is to establish one absolute truth whose unlimited context is Value free.
MoQ language's purpose is to establish absolute good whose contexts subsume all truths, including very static and limited SOM.
SOM cannot, is incapable to, evolve to MoQ because it is Value free and abhors any paradigm of adherence to a Value-emersion philosophy!
Update: Affirmation by Irving Stein. During our review of Irving Stein's book, The Concept of Object as the Foundation of Physics, for our Quantonics web site, we found these words by Stein, "Clearly classical physics is not the basis of quantum mechanics, but rather arises, as has been shown, from quantum mechanics under specialized circumstances." See page 79 of 1996 edition, Peter Lang Pub.
When we did Stein's review, some seven years ago, we did not understand, we did not have quantum entendres for what he meant by "specialized circumstances."
Now we are k~now~ings those "specialized circumstances" are that classical science is a classical simplification, an idealization of quantum reality when a classicist reifies a genuinely wave~probabilistic and uncertain quantum reality by making it classically, certainly, DIQheadedly 'hold still,' by zeroing h-bar.
Note: to reify is to take, to view any abstraction, e.g., quantum reality, as material, as objective, as immutable and unchanging.
Doug - 28Oct2005.
If we paraphrase using our philosophical duals, "Clearly SOM is not the basis of MoQ, but rather arises, as has been shown, from MoQ under specialized circumstances."
Henri Louis Bergson, fin de siècle 19, showed us what those 'classical' "specialized circumstances" are, succinctly:
- An classical assumption that objects in classical, Newtonian reality are independent of one another,
- An classical assumption that classical reality is stoppable, holds still, may be analytically halted for scalarbation, and
- An classical assumption that negation is objective: you minus you equals zero.
See Quantonics' QELRs of cancel and positive.
See our review of Hume's Law.
Red text added 4Oct2008.
Note that our review of Stein's book appeared in last week of October, 1998.
Here we see even language is above SOM because its strategy (dynamic axioms) is capable of evolution, where SOM's strategy (static axioms) is not evolutionarily stable. Language is an enabler of MoQ, while SOM's static immune system attempts to defeat/destroy MoQ.
If you read closely, you will see Pirsig tells us:
(I would add:)
Our above comments offer a bit of our conjecture mixed with a couple of Pirsig's MoQ axioms intuitive, yes?
Quantonics takes an active role in developing and evolving a novel quantumesque MoQ language. If you wish to pursue this effort in greater detail, and learn our new Quantonic language in that process, see these links in order presented:
June, 1999 QQA on Thelogos
Coined Quantonic Terms
May, 2000 QQA on Millennium III Problems with English Language
June, 2000 QQA on Millennium III New Language Characteristics
Quantonic English Language Remediation for Millennium III
An Evolving List of Problematic Classical English Terms
How to Be (Become)
a Student of Quantonics
Quantonic English Language Problematics for Millennium III
What is Wrong with SOM's Logic?
What is Wrong with Probability as Value?
What Are Sophisms?
Quantum Logic: We Must Learn to Start Calling It "Coquecigrues"
Thank you for reading, and
Many truths to you,