Roger, Jonathan, Platt, and all
.... about "awareness"....
We are suspended in language.. and, what's worse, I'm suspended in
another language: being non-English, I obviously read the term in a
different way. I don't know the etymology of "aware", I just have found
that the Old English term was "gewaer", and it does not recall to me any
Latin connection.
I'm not able to think in English, so when I write "aware", I think
"consapevole", or "conscio"; that is, retranslated to English:
"conscious". (Andrea, correct me if I'm wrong)
Actually both the Italian terms contain a reference to an "inner"
"knowledge" : con-scious is "with" "science". So, what does it mean to
be aware? IMOE (In My Own English) it's "to well know how to do",
without the need of an external guidance.
"And what is good, Phædrus,
And what is not good...
Need we ask anyone to tell us these things? "
This is, IMO, the Q-awareness.
In my last post I mentioned animism. I think that the so aggressive
modern attitude against the possibility of an "aware matter" (so well
interpreted by Roger) comes from the intellectual reaction against the
ancient animism. Well, let me say I'd like to be aggressive even against
the "aware intellect". Aware of what? (Oh, Lord, am I sounding like
Bo?)
ROGER:
Again, to my way of thinking, if you are saying that neutrinos are
aware, according to my dictionary you are saying they are "cognizant,
conscious, sensible, alive, awake, and having knowledge of something,
and that they can draw inferences from their experiences.
The whole definition you offer can't satisfy me, as well, Roger. Do we
have knowledge? ... NO. (Intellectually) we are knowledge. Are we
sensible? NO. (Biologically) we are sensation. We are the experience of
DQ. And atoms, as well, are the inorganic experience of DQ. What else?
JONATHAN:
While recognizing Pirsig's tremendous contribution, I also note his
statement (in an old message to the Lila Squad) that most of the MoQ
remains uncharted. IMO, the causality area is one where Pirsig has left
us a lot of work. Marco gives us a quote from RMP (below) that I find
particularly unsatisfying:
MARCO (previous):
Pirsig, about the "Free Will vs. Detrminism" controversy, writes: "In
the MOQ this dilemma doesn't come up. To the extent that one's behavior
is controlled by static patterns of quality it is without choice. But to
the extent that one follows DQ, which is undefinable, one's behavior is
free".
So, do atoms follow DQ? To a certain extent, YES. So, they have a free
will? YES.... So, they are aware? YES, if we just make it clear that
awareness and free will are, simply, the possibility to be dynamic, and
that this principle is valid at all levels.
JONATHAN:
All very well Marco, but that is hardly a rigorous statement. What
exactly is the "possibility to be dynamic". The way RMP writes, it could
be interpreted as the possibility to defy man-made definitions and laws!
In that case, it says more about the definitions than about nature's
dynamism.
Well, Jonathan maybe you find unsatisfying Pirsig's words as causation
is "your" topic. Just like Platt is not satisfied about beauty, I guess.
Actually, I think your contribution on the forum about "causation" is
one of the most valuable things I have read on the MOQ site. Anyway, you
ask me what exactly is the possibility to be dynamic... given that the
"exactly" requirement grates my q-nerves a bit, :-) , I think that the
q-awareness I was talking about few lines above is it.
thanks
Marco
p.s.
Maybe there's not "q-awareness" on the dictionaries. I don't mind.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
