Bodvar Skutvik (skutvik@online.no)
Fri, 29 Aug 1997 03:20:46 +0100
> Diana McPartlin wrote (to Doug Renselle):
> So the inorganic level is anything more complicated than an atom and the
> quantum level is anything smaller than an atom?
>
> But in Lila, Pirsig includes subatomic particles in the inorganic layer.
>
> Quote (chp 8)
> "The data of quantum physics indicate that what are called subatomic
> particles cannot possibly fill the definition of a substance. The
> properties exist then disappear, then exist, and then disappear again in
> little bundles called quanta"
>
> Is this not the quantum level that he is talking about? Why has he now
> decided to separate this from the rest of inorganic quality?
I wholeheartedly agree with Diana, but will add the following: I don't
pretend to be an official MOQ spokesman, but I protest Doug Renselle's
introduction of - God knows what - in his "worksheet". He admits that it
is purely speculative, but goes on to say..."it may be useful for you in
addressing the Pirsig system..! Hardly. If anyone surfs on to the site and
spots this and believes it to be a table of the MOQ, the person is sure to
leave as soon as possible and never come back - I would at least.
It revolts me because I feel it goes against the grain of the Quality idea
which is to simplify the messes that Subject/Object thinking has led to,
and I cannot in my wildest fantasies believe that Pirsig has vouched for
this. Doug has better come up with some documentation that he has his OK,
and until it is presented I suggest the thing be removed from the page. He
may
write whatever he wants on the internal mailing list, but to have it up on
the billboard isn't fair.
Doug says this is a graphical distillation of chapter 12+ in LILA, I have
just reread it and how and where he finds grounds for introducing
....additional static levels above and below his essential four ones....is
incomprehensible. The said chapter opens with the following statement:
"They are exhaustive. That's all there are".
Its heading "Dynamic Value Patterns" is a misnomer too, if one thing is for
sure it is that Dynamic value has no patterns to it. (Let's keep the
fractal nature of chaos aside). It shows that Doug has not grasped the very
essence of the Quality.
Sorry for sounding so zealous, but I find it terribly important to keep the
quality from being polluted. Doug may add tables to his heart's delight if
they are underpinned by the fundamental simplicity: For instance the Social
interactions are truly baffling and may give employment to his fertile mind
for years, but don't mess with the fundamentals.
PS. The "Einstein meets Margritte" paper will soon be available on the
site, and everyone can see that Doug has no back-up from Pirsig for his
assertions.
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 - 16:41:26 CEST