[SA previously]
> Do you think Ham has a different philosophy?
> Different from what is called the moq?
[Ron]
> I feel Ham has come to a very similar point but by a
> differing path,
What is this "similar point"?
[Ron]
> I also feel that while
> he focuses on the individuals relationship with
> source Pirsig focuses on
> empirical explaination
> and practicle employment in regard to scientific
> inquirey.
Do you really think the moq is solely focused on
"scientific inquiry"? And what does that mean?
[Ron]
> I think we have the age old
> classic/romantic split of a single concept,
Haven't we settled upon static/dynamic as the
first split of quality? If we haven't, then that's
fine. I have though. I would say this is a real
example of where absolutes fade away. What is the
Dao?
[Ron]
> I'd like to work it out and
> see if this is the case.
> who knows, it could lead to something bigger than
> both. Throw in Bo's
> SOL and one would have
> a metaphysical swiss army knife with MOQ as it's
> hub.
Go for it.
SA
____________________________________________________________________________________
Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect. Join Yahoo!'s user panel
and lay it on us. http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
