Sojourner (sojourner@vt.edu)
Tue, 14 Jul 1998 05:51:37 +0100
At 10:24 AM 7/11/98 +0000, Jonathan B. Marder wrote:
>>> To be perfectly honest, I can see some value in what Sojourner has now
>>> suggested:-
>>> >DQ = energy
>>> >SQ = matter
>>>[snip] DQ=energy, the cause of change, sounds pretty good to me.
>
>
>>If matter and energy are just different ways of looking at the same
>>thing, why separate them with an SQ/DQ split? To be blunt, matter and
>>energy are inorganic SPoV. You'll have a hard time trying to convince
>>me otherwise.
>Actually, you may have noticed that I stopped short of endorsing the
>SQ=matter idea. I completely agree that matter and energy as physical
>concepts are patterns that Pirsig would call inorganic. What's
>interesting though is that all physical units for energy are somehow
>related to matter. We have no other understanding of the energy concept.
>Then again, even if we do say that DQ=energy, as soon as we try to
>define or understand that energy we end up with .. ...........
>
Silly Jonathan... sheesh *grin* SQ = matter like 2+2=4...!! SQ is
matter on the inorganic "level" (boy I hate that word). I like the
"physical" word better...
I guess a more accurate way of stating my thought would be
"as expressed on a physical division of understanding, SQ = matter".
But matter does NOT equal SQ. Let's make sure that is 100% certain.
Equally, energy does NOT equal DQ.
Remember the Pirsigian box paradox.
*grin*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:28 CEST