Dave Thomas (dlt44@ipa.net)
Tue, 20 Jan 1998 18:08:54 +0100
Diana,Doug
> The Metaphysics of Quality
> 2. The MoQ is the intellectual path to enlightenment.
> Also, is it "the" path, or "an intellectual path?"
> I'm not aware of any other intellectual paths but it's possible that
> there are, so it should be "an"
> All the Buddha can say is "see for yourself". In other words,
> the Buddha can't tell you what it is, but he can point the way and you
> can experience it for yourself, and then you'll understand.
If Budda can only point the way but you must experience it, it would seem that
many individuals with many truths, will follow many paths. So "an" would be
the better choice.
Diana I came to the same conclusion after rereading the "path" quote we
deleted from the MoQ graphic. I had used "the" path and upon reflection
decided that it really should have been "an" to signify that while the paths
maybe similar or parallel they will all be different.
> >Quality is intrinsically uncertain and certain - that's its nature.
Doug is not this certainty, uncertainty, as they apply it in quantum physics
expressed in patterns. ie We can set up an experiment to demonstrate a series
of events and while we can predicted a certain pattern of results, we can only
talk about it in terms of probablity. Is not this analogous to what MoQ calls
static patterns, in so much as they are stable but not truely fixed, we can
identify the pattern but not necessarily the location of each individual
element at any given point in time. Now whether this is because of the finite
nature of our minds, the static patterns drifting, or the interaction of SQ
and DQ would be hard to say. Probably all of the above. So if what Diana has
said about your conclusions in true.
> Your uncertainty principle would seem to say that we can predict static
> quality but we can't predict Dynamic Quality.
I would have to agree with her. I think we all agree on the unpredictable
nature of DQ. But are not, from human perspective, MoQ's static levels,
patterns of value which we can determine with a very high degree of
probability or certainty that still contain a degree of uncertainty for
whatever reason? If this is so I would have to agree your uncertainty
principle needs to be somehow illustrated more clearly. Would this not help to
incorporate Pirsig's praise for science's ability to change based on new
information and/or theories?
Dave
-- 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