clark (clark@netsites.net)
Tue, 6 Jan 1998 20:51:04 +0100
----------
> From: Bodvar Skutvik <skutvik@online.no>
> To: Multiple recipients of <lilasqd@mail.hkg.com>
> Subject: LS Re: Principles
> Date: Monday, January 05, 1998 3:02 PM
>
> Sat, 3 Jan 1998 08:54:47 -0500 Platt Holden wrote:
>
> > Hi Lila Squad.
>
> > Here is my offering of the basic principles of the MoQ. I
wholeheartedly
> > agree with Diana that without agreement on the basic Principles, a lot
of
> > Squad's exchanges amount to little more than intelligent but
insignificant
> > cocktail party talk. What we're dealing with here is nothing less than
a
> > huge paradigm shift on a par with Einstein's relativity. If it is to
> > survive and have any influence, it must "latched" with deep tap roots
of
> > comprehension and believability. I apologize for the length, but to
> > condense a 400 page book that will, in Diana' s challenge "cover
> > everything," and still have some semblance of meaning I found a truly
> > daunting task. To what degree I've been successful is for your
evaluation.
>
>
> Happy New Year to the entire LS!
> I find nothing wrong with the various principle entries presented
> up to now on the /principia.html page, but Platt has really done a
> marvellous job. Compared to this simple but elegant presentation,
> mine look a bit stilted. The only thing I find wanting in Platt's
> principles is what the MOQ opposes. We, the LS know, but most people
> haven't got the faintest clue that they harbour any notions about
> reality, but think it presents itself unfiltered. That's why I chose
> to start with SOM, and tried to follow Pirsig's reasoning in
> "proving" quality and showing how it would improve our world. If
> Platt finds it possible to add something like the first point of my
> version (Edited in his own style and nothing changed/revised in
> his!), I think we have our "Principia Qualitaetis" (Possibly combined
> with Dave's graphics).
>
> Ken's summary of MOQ is also a fine piece. The diagram did however
> come out a bit jumbled at my end, and even if I tried to reassemble it
> I'm not sure if it is right. Couldn't you make a graphic version of it
> Ken? There is also a point I would have like TLS' opinion on. Ken
> correctly list touch, sight etc. as Biological patterns, but why not
> just call it SENSATION - other organisms may perceive by more
> subtle (sixth sense) ways. Social patterns are also correctly listed
> as family, church etc., but it's a bit "anthropomorphic"; other
> organisms may have other social configurations. Why not call the
> values that provide the social glue EMOTIONS? By doing so we
> have the sequence: ? -SENSATION - EMOTION - REASON as the
> different levels' "subjective" side. But what are we to call the
> "mind" of matter? Suggestions please!
>
> Bo
>
> PS.
> I found this new and very advanced search engine. Entering
> "Pirsig" brought up a lot of stuff. Among it Maggie's homepage and my
> essay, plus plus. Check it out http://www.nlsearch.com/search.html
>
>
> --
> post message - mailto:lilasqd@hkg.com
> unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com
> homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
>
>
Bodvar and LS,
Good points and good discussion. The only thing that comes immediately to
mind for the inorganic level is "PATTERNS'. Would this be unambiguous
enough? It is hard not stray from the path Diana has set. Sorry Diana.
Lots of different approaches out here toward an agreed upon end. I am a bit
concerned that we keep, as I think Pirsig did, our outline of his path to
reality on a straightforward and clear road that is easily and clearly
understood. Plenty of room after that for our different approaches to our
own personal reality. Thats the beauty of his philosophy. It gives us a
rigid framework that admits of a multitude of approaches. Look at the way
that he has placed Dynamic Quality in a rigid and repeatable setting and
yet gave it complete freedom within the constraints of our sea of awareness
and the urgings of our static values. Pirsig incubated this philosophy for
a period of at least 25 or 30 years and finished with the disclaimer that
it was an ongoing, unfinished construct. Small wonder that we have so many
different opinions. Good work Diana. Keep our noses to the grindstone. Ken
-- post message - mailto:lilasqd@hkg.com 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 - 16:42:37 CEST