> [Krimel] > Again your design and your password are currently private and can in > principle be made public. Not so your pride in the creativity of your > design > or your smugness at needing a bank vault. I will decline to comment on > your > confidence that anything sent via e-mail can be considered in any sense > private.
DM: Why not, think cyborg, what if we replace all my biological equipment with electronic stuff would this make any difference, I can't see why you think there is some crucial distinction here, which only an SO metaphysics requires. > > [DM] > SQ is seen on all levels, the levels interact, and SQ is more or less > universal or local. If we have levels we do not need to have two > distinct essences, as Pirsig implies, that would see levels one and two as > objective and material, and three and four as subjective and non-material. > There is though something here that the MOQ misses about local and > less local SQ, private-individual and public-common. > > [Krimel] > Pirsig's conception works to the extent that he is claims that change and > stasis are common to both forms of understanding, subjective and > objective. > This makes the study of the interplay of flux and constancy primary in > either realm. This is also true of "levels" however they are conceived. DM: Excatly my point, we can talk SQ and DQ about patterns that are either more or less public or private, to start talking about subjective or objective seems to make some funny distinction between objective and subjective patterns. 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/
