Diana McPartlin (diana@asiantravel.com)
Wed, 7 Jan 1998 05:23:47 +0100
Dear Platt and LS
Platt Holden wrote:
> Diana has the thankless job of taking all the Squad's offerings and coming
> up with a succinct statement everyone will more or less be happy with. She
> undoubtedly knows more than anyone how hard that's going to be. She's
> already in trouble by saying "Reality is everything" because she sets up a
> boundary between everything and nothing. Pirsig says, "Or 'zero' or 'space'
> for that matter. Today these terms have almost nothing to do with nothing.
> 'Zero' and 'space' are complex relationships of 'somethingness.'" In other
> words, nothing is something, a logical absurdity.
Everything is everything so if nothing is something then everything is
nothing as well. Something that transcends everything is something as
well, consequently it is also everything. It may be a logical absurdity,
but, as quantum physics has shown us, the universe is logically absurd.
Any accurate theory of the universe would therefore also have to be
logically absurd. The problem that philosophy faces is that without
logic as a measuring rod we have no way to evaluate things. It seems
that you can say anything at all because the irrational has now become
rational. The MoQ offers a solution to that problem by by proposing
Quality as the new measuring rod. Whether or not it will work remains to
be seen.
As for the question at hand. I say we stick to "Quality is reality". It
avoids the everything and nothing question. And I think we just have to
accept that not everything in the MoQ can be defined. It's either that
or give up the whole thing. Reality is a collective hunch. That's
probably the best we can do.
Diana
-- 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