Bodvar Skutvik (skutvik@online.no)
Tue, 6 Jan 1998 09:21:16 +0100
Sat, 3 Jan 1998 08:54:47 -0500 Platt Holden wrote:
> Hi Lila Squad.
> Here is my offering of the basic principles of the MoQ. I wholeheartedly
> agree with Diana that without agreement on the basic Principles, a lot of
> Squad's exchanges amount to little more than intelligent but insignificant
> cocktail party talk. What we're dealing with here is nothing less than a
> huge paradigm shift on a par with Einstein's relativity. If it is to
> survive and have any influence, it must "latched" with deep tap roots of
> comprehension and believability. I apologize for the length, but to
> condense a 400 page book that will, in Diana' s challenge "cover
> everything," and still have some semblance of meaning I found a truly
> daunting task. To what degree I've been successful is for your evaluation.
Happy New Year to the entire LS!
I find nothing wrong with the various principle entries presented
up to now on the /principia.html page, but Platt has really done a
marvellous job. Compared to this simple but elegant presentation,
mine look a bit stilted. The only thing I find wanting in Platt's
principles is what the MOQ opposes. We, the LS know, but most people
haven't got the faintest clue that they harbour any notions about
reality, but think it presents itself unfiltered. That's why I chose
to start with SOM, and tried to follow Pirsig's reasoning in
"proving" quality and showing how it would improve our world. If
Platt finds it possible to add something like the first point of my
version (Edited in his own style and nothing changed/revised in
his!), I think we have our "Principia Qualitaetis" (Possibly combined
with Dave's graphics).
Ken's summary of MOQ is also a fine piece. The diagram did however
come out a bit jumbled at my end, and even if I tried to reassemble it
I'm not sure if it is right. Couldn't you make a graphic version of it
Ken? There is also a point I would have like TLS' opinion on. Ken
correctly list touch, sight etc. as Biological patterns, but why not
just call it SENSATION - other organisms may perceive by more
subtle (sixth sense) ways. Social patterns are also correctly listed
as family, church etc., but it's a bit "anthropomorphic"; other
organisms may have other social configurations. Why not call the
values that provide the social glue EMOTIONS? By doing so we
have the sequence: ? -SENSATION - EMOTION - REASON as the
different levels' "subjective" side. But what are we to call the
"mind" of matter? Suggestions please!
Bo
PS.
I found this new and very advanced search engine. Entering
"Pirsig" brought up a lot of stuff. Among it Maggie's homepage and my
essay, plus plus. Check it out http://www.nlsearch.com/search.html
-- post message - mailto:lilasqd@hkg.com unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:37 CEST