Bodvar Skutvik (skutvik@online.no)
Mon, 25 Aug 1997 15:56:52 +0100
I have a feeling that we may soon get "snowed under" (Re LILA) in this
exchange, so as not to loose the thread I will just refer to the responses.
Nuances may be lost, but otherwise we will produce billion byte letters.
First: Jason maintains that that quantum phenomenons must be integrated for
the MOQ to be a valid alternative to the Subject/Object view. I agree
completely, but I do not see that they aren't; to the degree the subatomic
world is predictable and that equations apply, then it is the Inorganic
level; if not, it is dynamic. There must necessarily be a fringe zone.
Second: Lars Marius speculates about what would have happened had not the
great extinctions occurred. I think Magnus answered that one very well. A
metaphysics, in its capacity as an all-embracing theory, reaches back and
transforms the past as well: there are no objective facts that override
metaphysics! Another thing: The dynamics of MOQ is such that when Organic
life had emerged on top of Inorganic matter, the next quality step HAD to
be one that control the values of biology. Consequently the value of
commonality had be the next "notch", I can't see other possibilities. If
Lars thinks of development of other species it is evolution within the
Organic realm.
Third: Re the definitions of levels. Here Magnus also gave a very apt
comment about the problem being created from a SOM point of view: the
levels are discrete and yet there are no borders. Diana's child/parent
metaphor is a good simile. I have seen other names for the level term
(Pirsig himself also uses "patterns"). One is "dimension" suggested by Dr
Robert Harris (doctor of physics whom I hope soon will join the squad).
This one I like because it suggests the spatial continuum that nevertheless
is made up of the three vectors of depth, width and height. No one can tell
where one dimension ends and another start; they can be combined in endless
ways, and yet retain their separate properties.
Finally: Kelly Sedinger entered an opinion about the Intellectual dimension
that deserves a new thread. I - too - see it as the ability to perceive
Quality (why merely?) and not the "consciousness" signification it has in a
subject/object context, but it has even wider connotations. Would Kelly and
the rest of the "think tank" offer their views of this most elusive top
notch?
Bodvar
-- post message - mailto:skwok@spark.net.hk unsubscribe/queries - mailto:lilasquad@geocities.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:41:25 CEST