From: Pi (pi@mideel.ath.cx)
Date: Tue Jun 03 2003 - 22:55:16 BST
Hi August,
Thanks for bringing up that example. What I am trying to point out is that
the tree is *not* the same whether you see it or not! It is completely
dependent on the viewer. I believe it was in LILA where Pirsig mentioned
that when we blink, the reason we don't think that the world has ended is
because of the "continuation" static intellectual pattern that we have
adopted. Your tree example is very similar. One other example I would like
to point out from Pirsig is from zmm. Recall his rant about gravity not
existing before Newton coined the term and developed the theory. I would
like to invite you to explain this example using your theory of
perception.
The point you bring up about "free will" deserves a new thread because it
is too much of a tangent. In short, as I understand it, under MOQ, human
choice and the choices a lightning makes are not very different. Just
because we can predict path of a lightining bolt with some accuracy does
not imply that it does not have a choice. A lightining bolt "chooses" a
path of highest quality and so do each of us. But let us start a new
thread if anyone would like to examine this tangent in more detail.
Take care,
- Pi
On Tue, 3 Jun 2003, August West wrote:
> Pi
>
> Even if I have never seen a tree; its shape and
> structure is the same whether I personally, as an
> individual have seen it or not. Perception is
> relative to an individual, just as choices are. As a
> human I have a choice, a conscience
> choice about what I do next, nature doesn't. While
> lightning may "jump" rain drops to get to the ground
> following the path of least resistance; it has no
> choice about this property (quality) of lightning (and
> electricity in general). It works the same everytime.
>
> Does this example help?
> -August
>
> P.S. Anyone read "Faster than the Speed of Light"? I
> can't remember the author's name, I remember he is
> Portugese though. Speed of Light was variable to
> overcome the Horizon Problem in the Big Bang Theory;
> it is strictly theortical, but very, very interesting.
>
> --- Pi <pi@mideel.ath.cx> wrote:
> >
> > Hi August,
> >
> > I would have to disagree. I don't think there is any
> > thing called
> > "absolute perfection". A tree is not a tree (as we
> > usually define it) to a
> > person who has never seen one. The tree is different
> > for this person.
> > Perhaps this person is blind and only knows a tree
> > by the way it sounds
> > (during a windy night) or the way it feels. It is a
> > perfect tree for this
> > person; Just like how it is a perfect tree for you.
> > But it is *not*
> > absolute.
> >
> > Similarly, 'a' is just a bunch of squigly lines to a
> > person who doesn't
> > read english (or any syntactically similar
> > language). Perhaps it is not
> > even a bunch of lines for this person if they do not
> > know the concept
> > of lines! 'a' is still "perfect" for this person.
> >
> > Anyway, the real point I want to stress with these
> > examples is that
> > absolute perfection does not exist because we all do
> > not share
> > intellectual patterns. If we did, there would be no
> > need for a discussion
> > forum. ;) An object you touch/see/feel/smell/taste
> > is only there as a
> > static intellectual pattern.
> >
> > And, yes, I do agree with the later part about
> > "relative perfection". I
> > think I have reinstated that point with the examples
> > above.
> >
> > Take care,
> >
> > - Pi
> > http://pirsig.ath.cx
> >
> >
> > On Sun, 1 Jun 2003, August West wrote:
> >
> > > Pi;
> > >
> > > I think Nic may mean "perfect" in the sense
> > that
> > > trees are always trees; that an object is an
> > object;
> > > that a is a, is always perfect. This is a
> > definition
> > > of "perfect" that is absoulte. Writing a perfect
> > essay
> > > would however, be relative; as you indicated. It
> > is
> > > however, not impossiable to be "realtively
> > perfect".
> > > i.e. an essay that accomplishes all its goals
> > would be
> > > "relatively perfect".
> > >
> > > -August
> > > --- Pi <pi@mideel.ath.cx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Another thing I would like to point out is that
> > > > there no `absolute
> > > > perfection'. When you say "...the perfection in
> > any
> > > > essay...", you seem to
> > > > be referring to some absolute definition of
> > > > perfection. As I understand
> > > > it, the definition of perfection is very
> > relative to
> > > > our own static
> > > > patterns of quality. For example, I believe that
> > > > Pirsig's ZMM is an
> > > > excellent book, but obviously everyone who has
> > read
> > > > the book does not
> > > > share this opinion.
> > > >
> >
> >
> >
> > MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> > Mail Archives:
> > Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
> > http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> > Nov '02 Onward -
> >
> http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
> > MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
> >
> > To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the
> > instructions at:
> > http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
> >
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
> http://calendar.yahoo.com
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archives:
> Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jun 03 2003 - 21:58:28 BST