3W-Dave,
Your model may very well be the elusive "vector" model which I recall but
cannot find. Send it to me at rmb007Q1@hotmail.com as an MSword doc.
I actually picked up "A Brief History of Everything" on your say so... I
skimmed it mostly, my schedule unfortunately keeps me from doing any
concenrated personal reading these days. But I assume your referencing the
4 quadrants pictured in chap.5, figure 5-1. I'd love to see your map to the
MoQ from this diagram if I haven't already (I don't remember seeing one).
Oh yeah....
"1. Pirsig didn't do it." ---- As you know I'm sure... this is major
precursor to failure in this forum. (I was always a little diappointed I
didn't find more takers on my "integrity" simplification of the MoQ. I have
a feeling if it was signed 'RMP' it would found more supporters. Oh well.
"2. It leans too heavily on current "scientific truths" ---- As long as
they're current this shouldn't be much a problem (at least for now).
"3. Does not correspond to SODV diagram on 'subject'/ 'object'
split." --- Already a highly contested issue. I know Bodvar disagrees
w/Pirsig's placement of sub/obj split. So do a few other I believe.
"4 Totally anal, lacking mystically reverence." ---- You can't win em
all.... Besides, we judge it more for what it is and less for what it's not.
struggling to keep up,
rick
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:30 BST