Hi Roger and Squad
I've been reading your last couple of posts with a big smile on
my face. I recognize much of what I've been trying to say for
about a year now, but my disability to persuade people and/or
my ability to irritate people keeps getting in the way.
The way I see it, the core of what you're saying is:
> Pirsig warns us that what we see as independent
> realities are actually collections of patterns.
Which goes back to the argument we had this summer about the levels
being continuous or discrete. Exactly like you, I argued that we
tend to discuss the world in terms of "things" instead of in terms
of patterns. After making this initial mistake, it becomes futile
to make heads or tails of the rest of the MoQ and the result is all
kinds of contradictions.
The fact is, since I always discuss the levels in my way, and
others with whom I discuss, often discuss the levels in the
"thing" fashion, we are writing the same words but end up
disagreeing anyway because we have different interpretations
of the same words. This is partly why I've been relatively quiet
lately. The topics of the past months have been interesting enough
but it's hopeless to discuss them without this common frame of
reference.
Of course, one solution to avoid this would be to invent a new set
of words, but these two sets of interpretations would mean two very
different MoQs and that's not what we're trying to do, at least not I.
I can't say I agree completely with everything you say but let's
take one step at a time, I'm in no hurry.
As you said, I realize that what we say might seem rude. But I
can't honestly advocate a system that I can't make heads or tails
of, and I am unable to make heads or tails out of a "thing"-based
MoQ. If anyone can, I'm quite willing to listen.
Magnus
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:48 BST