Magnus Berg (qmgb@bull.se)
Mon, 30 Mar 1998 22:52:53 +0100
Hi again Donny
You wrote:
> Now in Pirsig-speak mode:
> DQ exists only in itself -- it "exists" as a possibility, a
> potentiality; it is defined as the unforfilled and thus it is always, ever
> empty vacume. It's NOTHING! It doesn't *really* exist because it is
> defined as the not-yet. Like the Tao it a space to move into or allong,
> but it is not a destination, position, or even a place. It's the big
> empty. (And the *Tao te Ching* argues at length that it is the emptyness
> that makes the container or vessel [the limits] usefull.)
> Noe the worst thing Pirsig does is use the word "static." I hate
> that choice of word because it emplies the frozen -- the unchanging. He
> should have said "preduring," "relativly long-lasting," or (better)
> "concrete." Obviusly all these patterns are IN time as a rhythm and a flux
> (that's what "pattern" is, right Peter?) They live!
I'm afraid I have to follow the standard procedure, I'm so predictable.
Static patterns are not IN time, time is a static pattern. Pirsig wrote
something about this in a letter to Anthony if I remember correctly...
Yes, here it is:
Pirsig said:
> "The MOQ really has no problem with time. The MOQ starts
> with the source of undifferentiated perception itself as
> the ultimate reality. The very first differentiation is
> probably `change`. The second one may be `before and
> after`. From this sense of `before and after` emerge more
> complex concepts of time."
>
> "Time is only a problem for the SOM people because if time
> has none of the properties of an object then it must be
> subjective. And if time is subjective that means Newton`s
> laws of acceleration and many other laws of physics are
> subjective. Nobody in the scientific world wants to allow that."
>
> "All this points to a huge fundamental metaphysical difference
> between the MOQ and classical science: The MOQ is truly
> empirical. Science is not. Classical science starts with
> a concept of the objective world - atoms and molecules - as
> the ultimate reality. This concept is certainly supported
> by empirical observation but it is not the empirical
> observation itself."
>
> "Poincare`s paradox occurs because concepts are the most
> ephemeral static patterns of all. If you mistakenly call
> one of these concepts `ultimate reality`, then ultimate
> reality becomes ephemeral too. Thus classical scientific
> reality keeps changing all the time as scientists keep
> discovering new conceptual explanations."
Another thing, static patterns do not live. Static patterns are
per definition predictable, life isn't. If you're interested in
my view of this, you might want to read my Classisist essay in
the forum.
Magnus
-- "I'm so full of what is right, I can't see what is good" N. Peart - Rush-- 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 - 16:42:58 CEST