Hi Jonathan
> Magnus, our disagreement is down to this . . .
>
> > JONATHAN
> > > My only problem is your one-to-one mapping between "event" and
> subject-object
> > > pattern.
> >
>
> MAGNUS
> > But that's one of the most basic assumptions of the MoQ, that a
> subject-object
> > pair is created by each quality event.
> >
> This is the Magnus interpretation, that a single discreet quality event leads
> to a single unique object and a single unique subject. Pirsig says something
> more general, that subject-object pairs are a consequence of quality. Magnus,
> do you have a quote to support your interpretation?
No, I don't think I have. And I do think you've misrepresented me a tad with
the "single unique object and a single unique subject" part. It sounds like
each object and subject are completely re-created from scratch by every single
quality event. I guess I wrote "re-created", but I also wrote:
It's the static patterns that you, I and the cake are made of that enables us
to share the "same, same, but different" experience.
With that I meant that the static patterns of the subject and object are the
glue between the quality events. Without static patterns, each quality event
*would* be completely re-creating a subject/object pair from scratch every time.
> MAGNUS
> > But the MoQ says it's the other way around. The events are primary, discreet
> > and unique, the rest is secondary.
> >
>
> Again Magnus, I don't recall Pirsig saying that the primary source of reality
> is discreet "quantum" events.
No, not all at once, and perhaps not "quantum" at all. And I frankly don't
restrict my thoughts to what Pirsig did say and didn't say anymore, neither
do you, so let's stop pretend his words are written on a holy stone?
Anyway, I still believe that the MoQ says that reality = quality = morality.
And since quality is the event at which the subject experiences the object,
then reality is also that same event.
> The events and all the SQ patterns that
> characterise them are reality, but not the source of reality.
Ehh? So what's the source of reality? You wrote:
> I maintain that reality can be described in terms of infinite overlapping
> subject-object patterns.
I would phrase our differences like:
You think that reality is best described by static patterns, and that we
experience those static patterns via quality events.
I think that reality is best described by quality events, and that we
deduce the static patterns from those quality events.
(Same, same, but different. :)
Magnus
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:32 BST