Roger and Magnus (mainly) & Foci.
On 15 Jun 2001, at 0:20, RISKYBIZ9@aol.com wrote:
> Below is a response to anthony from Pirsig in the Ant paper available
> on the WWW.:
> "As I understand the first paradox alleged here, the MOQ
> inconsistently states that time created the static universe and also
> states that time is not a part of the static universe. You can't have
> it both ways. The answer, I think, is that according to the
> Metaphysics of Quality, time and change did NOT act to evolve the
> static universe. Only Dynamic Quality did this. "Time" and "change"
> are primary concepts used to describe this evolution but they do not
> cause evolution any more than Newton's law of gravity causes the earth
> to stick together. Except where muscle tissue is involved, concepts do
> not push inorganic matter around."
> Hope this clears up some issues.
> Rog
> PS -- Jonathan, you may be right on that last comment.....:^)
Thanks Roger.
Yes, this clears it up for me at least. Pirsig says that "time"
(change) is a concept which is to say a generalization - which is to
say Intellect. Remember the passage in ZAMM where he states
that there was no gravity until Newton came along and created the
law. In its time that one struck me heavily (along with a dozen
other in that book).
Magnus
Your foray into the physics is impressive, but I have this feeling of
being sucked into a Renselle-like "physicsmysticism". This is
Intellect's effort to make its value universe (generalization or
objetivizions) the innermost reality instead of Dynamic Quality. OK,
no evil there -on the contrary: by way of Intellect existence has
slowly "demasked" Social value's similar effort and rationalized the
world.
To do so Intellect had to have its period of being REALITY itself,
but at the Quantum and Relativity outposts its subjective/objective
division collapses, but the thing is not to form a Quantum religion
(and hijack the MoQ), but to revert to the simplicity postulate of
LILA. When you say:
> DQ introduced the 3 space-dimensions plus time, which are 4 of the
> state- dimensions that inorganic patterns can value. The 3
> space-dimensions plus time makes sure no two inorganic patterns
> occupies the same spot at the same time. Patterns are more or less
> free to move around in the 3 space-dimensions but all inorganic
> patterns travel through the time dimension like an army, strictly
it is not wrong - it may be the best Intellectual description there is -
but nonsensical to the inorganic level - as Intellect's "Biology" is to
life or "Sociology" is to the social level.
I believe that this is what Marco says to Jonathan
> Jonathan:
> > The second law of thermodynamics states that systems
> > tend to a state of higher disorder. Obviously, this tendency
> > is a tendency over time
> Yes, even if I have doubts about your *obviously*. I agree with you
> that we can measure time on the basis of entropy. I'd say , (hoping it
> will not be found it is a huge platypus.... ) entropy is not
> reversable, ok, but it's not a constant process. Only when we arrange
> things to make it constant, we get time.
and thanks to Marco for the excellent posts in the "Toffler" thread
at the MD.
Bo
------- End of forwarded message -------
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:31 BST