Diana McPartlin (diana@asiantravel.com)
Thu, 28 Aug 1997 11:48:57 +0100
Doug Renselle wrote:
> Pirsig's philosophy unifies the subject/object dichotomy in the
> macroworld. He calls this SO. He says this unification can only
> happen in the context of Quality. We get SOQ. But we are still in
> the macroworld. Why? Because Pirsig started at the inorganic level
> and worked his way up. The inorganic level is the atomic level from a
> physics perspective. The macroworld is everything above atoms: e.g.,
> molecules, crystals, water, DNA, cells, proteins, organs, life forms,
> and so on... The microworld is everything below the atomic
> (inorganic) level. The quantum level represents the next level below
> the inorganic level. At this level and below, I speculate that we
> will find a different kind of unification -- could we call it 'soq?'
> For me this is another unification. Note that we still have Pirsig's
> Dynamic Quality unifying both. Something like this: DQ(SOQ,soq).
So the inorganic level is anything more complicated than an atom and the
quantum level is anything smaller than an atom?
But in Lila, Pirsig includes subatomic particles in the inorganic layer.
Quote (chp 8)
"The data of quantum physics indicate that what are called subatomic
particles cannot possibly fill the definition of a substance. The
properties exist then disappear, then exist, and then disappear again in
little bundles called quanta"
Is this not the quantum level that he is talking about? Why has he now
decided to separate this from the rest of inorganic quality?
Diana
-- post message - mailto:skwok@spark.net.hk unsubscribe/queries - mailto:lilasquad@geocities.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:41:26 CEST