LS Re: Re FAQ-Metaphysics and all that


Magnus Berg (qmgb@bull.se)
Wed, 19 Nov 1997 18:59:51 +0100


Deja vu Platt!

> > Then how do you explain E=m*c^2 in MoQ terms?
>
> In MoQ terms, Einstein's famous formula is a high quality static
> intellectual value pattern.

You can interpret anything on the net as intellectual SPoV. But
you're avoiding the issue. There's an amazingly exact match between
the mass of matter and the amount of energy you can get by transforming
it to energy.

To me, that says that the relationship between matter and energy is
analogous to the relationship between, say water vs. oxygen and
hydrogen. Different levels are involved, that's all.

> > Nobody knows the true nature of matter either.
>
> I agree. But in MoQ terms, "Matter is just the name for certain inorganic
> value patterns." (Lila, Chapter 11.)

Doesn't that hint that Pirsig also thinks that there are other
manifestations of inorganic SPoV?

> >But it would be dead wrong to leave something as
> > static and predictable as energy out of a metaphysics.
>
> Energy is static and predictable? Tell that to someone whose house burned
> down after being struck by lightning. Some forms of energy are predictable,
> others not.

Some forms of matter are predictable, others not. A meteorite would be the
matter equivalence to lightning.

> Pirsig hasn't left energy out of the Metaphysics of Quality.
> It's called Dynamic Quality.

I just couldn't agree less. Are you surprised when you let go of a cup of
coffee and it falls to the ground? Every time?

        Magnus

--
post message - mailto:skwok@spark.net.hk
unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com
homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:14 CEST