Doug Renselle (renselle@on-net.net)
Sat, 30 Aug 1997 03:11:07 +0100
Diana,
I hereby retract the MoQ table I formerly submitted to the LilaSquad
site. I have thought about this a lot. For me Pirsig is about
unification of ideas and new patterns of value, especially unification
of subject and object. Pirsig is about DQ which allows for new memes to
spontaneously arise. I want to be part of that process.
It is clear that my perceptions do not align well with those of you and
Bodvar. I sense a rift, caused by me, in the early stages of the
development of the LilaSquad. I do not want to be responsible for
damaging your efforts. I am for good, positive energy. I believe that
negative energy destroys!
I have enjoyed this brief tete a tete with you,
Doug Renselle.
============================================
Bodvar Skutvik wrote:
> > Diana McPartlin wrote (to Doug Renselle):
>
> > 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?
>
> I wholeheartedly agree with Diana, but will add the following: I don't
>
> pretend to be an official MOQ spokesman, but I protest Doug Renselle's
>
> introduction of - God knows what - in his "worksheet". He admits that
> it
> is purely speculative, but goes on to say..."it may be useful for you
> in
> addressing the Pirsig system..! Hardly. If anyone surfs on to the site
> and
> spots this and believes it to be a table of the MOQ, the person is
> sure to
> leave as soon as possible and never come back - I would at least.
>
> It revolts me because I feel it goes against the grain of the Quality
> idea
> which is to simplify the messes that Subject/Object thinking has led
> to,
> and I cannot in my wildest fantasies believe that Pirsig has vouched
> for
> this. Doug has better come up with some documentation that he has his
> OK,
> and until it is presented I suggest the thing be removed from the
> page. He
> may
> write whatever he wants on the internal mailing list, but to have it
> up on
> the billboard isn't fair.
>
> Doug says this is a graphical distillation of chapter 12+ in LILA, I
> have
> just reread it and how and where he finds grounds for introducing
> ....additional static levels above and below his essential four
> ones....is
> incomprehensible. The said chapter opens with the following statement:
>
> "They are exhaustive. That's all there are".
>
> Its heading "Dynamic Value Patterns" is a misnomer too, if one thing
> is for
> sure it is that Dynamic value has no patterns to it. (Let's keep the
> fractal nature of chaos aside). It shows that Doug has not grasped the
> very
> essence of the Quality.
>
> Sorry for sounding so zealous, but I find it terribly important to
> keep the
> quality from being polluted. Doug may add tables to his heart's
> delight if
> they are underpinned by the fundamental simplicity: For instance the
> Social
> interactions are truly baffling and may give employment to his fertile
> mind
> for years, but don't mess with the fundamentals.
>
> PS. The "Einstein meets Margritte" paper will soon be available on the
>
> site, and everyone can see that Doug has no back-up from Pirsig for
> his
> assertions.
>
> Bodvar
>
>
-- 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