Hi Magnus and all,
> > MAGNUS
> > > But that's one of the most basic assumptions of the MoQ, that a
> > subject-object
> > > pair is created by each quality event.
> > >
> JONATHAN
> > 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?
>
MAGNUS
> 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 don't think I have represented you at all - unless you have now changed your
view. Here is what you wrote just a week ago:
MAGNUS (24/7/2001):
>Quality events are unique,
>no two subjects can observe the same object.
>A subject - object pair is created by each quality event.
MAGNUS (29/7/2001)
>I guess I wrote "re-created", but I also wrote:
> 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.
That makes it even worse. Static patterns are now the glue BETWEEN quality
events? That makes things really messy.
> > MAGNUS
> > > But the MoQ says it's the other way around. The events are primary,
discreet
> > > and unique, the rest is secondary.
> > >
> JONATHAN
> > Again Magnus, I don't recall Pirsig saying that the primary source of
reality
> > is discreet "quantum" events.
>
MAGNUS
> 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?
>
That is fine by me Magnus, but you blatantly pronounce "The MoQ says".
You should have started your sentence "Magnus says" or "IMO".
[snip]
> JONATHAN
> > I maintain that reality can be described in terms of infinite overlapping
> > subject-object patterns.
>
MAGNUS
> 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.
>
Magnus, you are a charletan. You completely twist and misrepresent my
position.
I do not hold the view you ascribe to me, as most people who read this
discussion also seem to realize.
MAGNUS
> I think that reality is best described by quality events, and that we
> deduce the static patterns from those quality events.
>
By dividing quality into discreet "events", you are already in the realm of
patterns. Furthermore, you have already admitted that your "quality events"
indeed translate into subject-object pairs. Thus Magnus, if you take my
statement and your statement about how reality can be described, we are
largely in agreement. Magnus, if you want your version to become truly useful
(a genuine "best" description of reality), I suggest some more work to develop
the idea of the "quality event" beyond a slogan.
Jonathan
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:32 BST