Bodvar Skutvik (skutvik@online.no)
Thu, 15 Jan 1998 21:23:37 +0100
Tue, 14 Jan 2098 16:05:09 -0600 Ken Clark wrote
> LS and Diana,
> What if the world has happened to the Lila Squad? I have had only one
> message since Friday. Does everyone have this figured out except me?
> Diana, since I can't imagine no one having an opinion in four days I am
> beginning to wonder if I have been ousted from the mail server. Or maybe it
> has developed that we are on the wrong track with the Quality idea and this
> is the work of the Devil. Maybe he has confounded us to the tower of quiet.
> I hope it does not develop that Diana is ill. I doubt that though since
> Bodvar Snuck a message through yesterday. Of course, Bodvar probably has
> special powers that transcend such things.
Rest assured Ken it is still two years to go to the end of the world,
according to the doomssayers. Speaking of special powers I wonder
what hacker's trick you have learned that makes your messages stick
to the top of my Pegasus mail-box regardless what sorting method I
apply. Has anyone else experienced this?
Earlier on you wrote (to Platt):
> If we talk about these ideas and everyday things we have to use
> subject\object terms. We can't say, "I got out of value this morning
> and valued and brushed my value and drove my value to value." and so
> forth.
Really Ken, that is not the idea of it. The various stable value
levels are clear. Matter and the products made out of it is no
mystery, no need to be that zealous! We agree that the subject/object
division is necessary to perceive and think, but it is not the
fundamental reality.
You go on to say:
> I think Pirsig was facing similar problems
> when he gave his E meets M talk. If you notice in his diagram he
> still divides his four static patterns of value into two subjective
> and objective levels. (I ask your pardon in advance Bo, but I think
> this may be one of the reasons you are not too enthusiastic about
> the E meets M paper). I think Pirsig was facing there the same problem that
> concerns me now. He was trying to present his ideas in a way that
> would not alienate too many of his listeners.
Yes, definitely, the "Subject, Object, Data and Values" diagram
placing the four dimensions of value into two separate boxes one
called Objective (matter and life) and one Subjective (society and
Intellect) was a way of making a "bridge" between SOM and MOQ.
Earlier on I spoke of the so-called Lorenz' Transformations that has
to be applied to go from ordinary physics to relativity. The MOQ is
a kind of superrelativity, and no-one can step across carrying the
mindset of SOM and still understand the Quality idea. Once upon the
time the British philosopher Bertram Russel claimed that he was the
only person besides Einstein who understood relativity. I don't know
the number today - relativity has stopped to disturb us - it is
just applied. Quantum theory still does, but for how long? I guess
there are some calculating procedures there too. Are we ever to find
the SOM/MOQ transformation?
Dave Thomas is working on some diagrams that look highly interesting.
They are based on the previously mentioned Kantian "level's of mind"
and Pirsig's system by way of (humbly) - my sequence of inner sides
to the various value levels: Interaction - Sensation - Emotion -
Reason. Very promising. If even a frail footbridge can be made, a
more solid thing can come later.
Bo
PS Outside here, at the polar circle, it is plus eight degrees (45 F)
while it's snowing in Jerusalem! And Eastern Canada is frozen stiff,
isn't it so Samuel?
-- 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 - 16:42:38 CEST