Hi David B., Rick and all,
Thanks David for finding this quote from Lila:
>
> "This may sound as though a purpose of the MOQ is to trash all
> subject-object thought but that's not true." then all the stuff you
already
> heard and then "The MOQ can explain subject-object relationships
> beautifully..."
Rick said that he was
> more comfortable leaving out the SOM
I think that we are in danger of confusing SO as an analytical tool with
SOM, i.e. SO as an ontology.
As a tool (lets call it SOT), it is well proven, with or without the "MoQ"
explanation. Furthermore, if you look at my recent reply to Rick, you will
se where I found SOT to be useful for analysing our conception of the
4-layers of the MoQ. Possibly, it is SOT that explains the 4 layers rather
than the other way round. Furthermore, perhaps we should have a careful look
at Pirsig's development of the 4 layers, because it seems to me that Pirsig
himself explains it essentially using SOT.
What it comes down to is that the 4-layers of patterns is a tool, not an
ontology. The only ontology in the MoQ is the Quality idea itself, and that
originates from ZAMM, not Lila. Furthermore, this ontology is appealing as a
base both for SOT and the MoQ in whatever combination.
DAVID B. asked:
> PS How about this Johathan; TIME itself is a static pattern of inorganic
> values.
That's a biggie! Time has caused philosophers endless (-:) problems. Kant
regarded Time and Space as absolutes intrinsically perceived. This he
contrasted with other extrinsic perceptions which arise empirically from
interaction of man with his surroundings. Kant's approach fitted well with
the deterministic mechanics of his time, but Einstein's relativity of space
and time put an end to all that. Pirsig clearly states that Inorganic PoV
are equivalent to matter. Time and space are NOT matter, but they have
meaning in the relationships between bits of matter - actually that's their
ONLY meaning. Einstein himself declared that time is "what clocks measure".
One thing I do know about time is that as a concept, it makes things
"fabulously coherent". Furthermore, it is a concept so central to our
thinking that I can't imagine any other way of thinking. However, if we
reject Kant and regard time only as a perception (rather than absolute),
then all our recent arguments (about human free will and causality vs.
determinism) are also only perceptions.
Jonathan
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:39 BST