Doug Renselle (renselle@on-net.net)
Sun, 8 Feb 1998 06:50:38 +0100
Diana McPartlin wrote:
>
> Platt Holden wrote:
> >
> > Doug Renselle wrote:
> >
> > This is great! Absolutely! We ARE seeing eye-to-eye! You describe
> > well and concisely differences twixt classical- and neo-scientists.
...
> Platt, Doug,
>
> Some advice:
>
> If it ain't simple, it ain't the MoQ
>
> Diana
>
Diana,
I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
Do you honestly believe that what you wrote above is what Pirsig says
about the MoQ?
'Lila' is unambiguous about simplicity and complexity. DQ is simple!
Everyone recognizes it but cannot define it. SQ is complex! We can
define it, but the definitions are endless because the possible patterns
are infinite and range from infinitely simple to infinitely complex.
If you want to tell TLS that MoQ is simple, fine, but I want to go on
the record here and now that I believe your position is wrong.
MoQ is complement(simple, complex). MoQ is complement(DQ, SQ).
To say MoQ is simple is to put a SOM-part of one's body in the sand so
to speak, IMO.
Mtty,
Doug Renselle.
-- "Mental reflection is so much more interesting than TV it's a shame more people don't switch over to it. They probably think what they hear is unimportant but it never is."By Robert M. Pirsig, in 'Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance,' p. 183, Bantam (paperback), 28th edition, 1982.
-- 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 - 16:42:47 CEST