RISKYBIZ9
Sat, 14 Aug 1999 09:37:20 -0700
ROGER REPLIES TO PLATT AND THE SILENCE AND ASKS DAVID B TO REJOIN THE DISCUSSION David and Platt, I was waiting for David and Walter and everyone else to respond to Platt and Avid and my posts. Since they aren't talkin', I am going to continue without them. PLATT: I question describing DQ as "eternal flux" since DQ is conceptually unknown and thus indescribable except to say it can't be described. Did Pirsig use “eternal flux” someplace? ROGER: No he did not. I am getting it from Doug's Quantonic site I guess. PLATT: Besides, and more importantly, it seems both David and Roger object to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics which Pirsig supports. Somewhere along the line we're going to have to come to terms with Bohr, Heisenberg and Pirsig on this one. ROGER: I wouldn't say I disagree yet. Let's dig into quantum interpretation and the MOQ. My only warning is that I disagree fundamentally with reductionist approaches that subatomic relationships are representative of higher level interrelationships. DAVID WROTE: This is how questions of our perceptions are tied in with the overall scheme of the MOQ. Epistemologically speaking, our perceptions are indirect. They are heavily mediated through all the layers of reality that preceded the intellect in historical evolution. ROGER WROTE: This I totally disagree with. Intellectual experience is not buffered experience. PLATT WROTE: I agree with Roger. Not only is intellectual experience not buffered, but we can directly perceive Dynamic Quality, as examples in Lila of the song, the heart attack, the brujo, the baby, etc. clearly illustrate. ROGER (now): Well David? You and Bodvar and half the squad seem to hold this belief. Platt and I and others disagree. In fact I think the intellectual level is closest to DQ and the most dynamic. PLATT: Thanks Roger for creating a high quality format for responding to more than one person at a time. I assumed I could "borrow" it from yu without prior permission. I wish everyone would use it because it presents each contributor’s views in a straightforward, easy-to- read fashion and encourages succinct responses. ROGER: It has just evolved out of our interaction. I don't think I am the first to use this, but again I could be wrong. Roger MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]