Hi David --
> Raymond Tallis in Philosophy Now states: > > "Perhaps the most dramatic and possibly even the most influential thought > in philosophy is Parmenides' assertion that the universe is an unchanging, > undifferentiated unity. He arrived at this conclusion by an argument so > simple that if you blink, you miss it. What-is-not, he says, is not. Since > what-is-not does not exist, it cannot act either as a womb of that which > is > coming to be, or a tomb for that which has ceased to be. Things cannot > therefore come into being, nor pass away, for they cannot arise out of or > pass into what-is-not. Nor can there be space between objects (since > empty space is what-is-not), and so the differentiation of Being into > beings > in the plural is impossible." > > Is the concept of DQ a refutation of this? Parmenides' student Zeno expressed the concept of motion (change) as a paradox. As it is usually stated, an arrow can never reach its target if space is infinitely divisible, because at half of its trajectory, half remains; at the midpoint of that half, 1/4 remains; and so on, ad infinitum. The argument is that one cannot take an infinite number of steps in finite time, and therefore motion as an infinitely divisible trajectory is impossible. Zeno and Parmenides both knew that motion exists, just as they knew that the world changes. The paradox occurs when we attempt to express motion as a mathematical progression. This is a prime example of the finite intellect trying to quantify infinite reality in experiential terms. If we were to accept Parmenides' conclusion, nothing happens and finitude is an illusion. Whether this assertion is refuted or supported by the MoQ is irrelevant to me. To the extent that Pirsig seems to define existence as the product of experience, change is illusory. On the other hand, to the extent that he insists on dealing with existence as evolutionary process, change is essential. What neither Parmenides nor Pirsig has taken into account is that existence is only what "appears to be" in time and space, whereas ultimate reality is the undifferentiated source of experience. Since the mode of experiential reality is relative to time and space, it cannot be Absolute Realty. Once we understand this--Voila!--there is no paradox. Essentially yours, Ham 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/
