LS Re: Catechism or FAQ


Dave Thomas (dlt44@ipa.net)
Sun, 23 Nov 1997 03:49:49 +0100


Bodvar & Squad

About the name. How about something in between the generic FAQ and relegious
Catechism like Quality-The Basics, Basic Qualities, or just The Basics.

Bo wrote:
> The suggestion from Magnus about "energy" besides "matter" I have
> remedied in my version by formulating the answer (to the "What is
> Static Inorganic Quality" question): "IT IS THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE".
> To divide it into immaterial energy/forces and material substance is
> SOM. Gravity is for instance a very rigid Inorganic pattern.

In my recent reading of Charle Jencks I found a diagram which is uncannyly
similar to Pirsig's Static Levels which indicates energy as a level. Even
though that theory indicates that the "pure energy" level was around for just
an instant, energy is still here and is one of the most stable and universal
patterns of values. I sometimes think we trash SOM when it is not really
necessary. After all it has helped us accomplish a great deal and until we
transition to better system (which will take generations) its the current
model and it is working however poorly we might think. To turn an aphorism
"Let's not break it till it's fixed"

That being said, is it important to have a separate energy level? I don't
think it is crucial but would fall on Doug's side because it makes the
transition from SOM to MoQ simpler and from a metaphysical sense if one is
looking for the smallest, most indivisable, most basic static quality;
quanta, protons, etc right now are it.

Dave

--
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