How can you say it does not fit into the MoQ? Gravity is the intellectual observation of an inorganic pattern. Although we have no proof of it, hypothetically we admit that this inorganic pattern exists even when you are not observing it. Even the truth of the law of gravity is not justified completely, because we cannot be sure whether the law is really being executed all the time or only when we observe events relating to gravity.
On 08/01/2008, Akshay Peshwe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > By gravity we either mean the supposed objectively existing (independent > of our observations, &c.) law or our understanding of it. The law, whose > objectivity is hypothetical/based on inference, therefore did exist before > our understanding of it. Within the whole logical system that we call > gravity, it is indeed true that gravity existed before our knowledge of it, > because the fundamental assumption of science is that there is a reality > independent of our observations. This has parallels to the famous question: > does the tree exist when nobody is looking at it? > > > On 08/01/2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Steve, Moqtalk. > > > > 7 Jan. u wrote: (thanks for you well-edited posts) > > > > Dan had written: > > > >>>> As you know, I don't subscribe to your theory that the MOQ is a > > > >>>> "meta-level." The MOQ is Robert Pirsig's idea and as such is a > > > >>>> collection of intellectual patterns of value. > > > > Peter: > > > >> I think 'meta-level' is appropriate because openness to the > > > >> dynamic is > > > >> like seeing the whole context (the actual levels) by stepping > > > >> beyond the limits of the 4th level, the limitations of SOM. Besides > > > >> MoQ is metaphysics! > > > > Bo: > > > > Right, the MOQ is a metaphysics, exactly what I have struggled > > > > to express. Besides the 4th. level is static and can't contain the > > > > very DQ/SQ system... > > > > Steve: > > > The intellectual level doesn't hope to contain "the very DQ/sq > > > system." DQ is obviously not contained in a static level. The 4th > > > level contains descriptions of DQ. The MOQ isn't reality itself, it > > > is words about reality. You are confusing the menu and the food. > > > > Bo now: > > You say that the intellectual level contains descriptions of DQ > > (which it doesn't, it says it's indefinable) but as the MOQ is an > > intellectual pattern (by your logic) even DQ is a mere description. > > - for where was Quality before Pirsig? I invoke ZAMM (page 30) > > and replace Newton with Pirsig, Gravity with Quality, John > > Sutherland with Steve Peterson, science with metaphysics and > > the narrator with Bo Skutvik. > > > > So Bo goes on. "For example, it seems completely > > natural to presume that Quality existed before Robert > > Pirsig. It would sound nutty to think that until the twentieth > > century there was no Quality." > > > > (Steve) "Of course". > > > > "So when did this Quality start? Has it always existed?'' > > > > Steve Peterson is frowning, wondering what Bo is driving > > at. > > > > Bo says "Is the notion that before the beginning of the > > earth, before the sun and the stars were formed, before > > the primal generation of anything, the Quality existed?". > > > > (Steve) "Sure" > > > > Bo continues: "Sitting there, having no mass of its own, > > no energy of its own, not in anyone's mind because there > > wasn't anyone, not in space because there was no space > > either, not anywhere...this Quality still existed?" > > > > Now Steve seems not so sure. > > > > "If that Quality existed" Bo says "..I honestly don't know > > what a thing has to do to be nonexistent. It seems to me > > that Quality has passed every test of nonexistence there > > is. You cannot think of a single attribute of nonexistence > > that that Quality didn't have. Or a single metaphysical > > attribute of existence Quality did have. And yet it is still > > 'common sense' to believe that Quality existed." > > > > I'm not mocking Pirsig, it's just his splendid logic backfires. It's no > > news that great scientific theories re-construct reality, and like a > > crystallization spreads to include the past. A metaphysical > > upheaval even more because the world has not experienced one > > since SOM and it was gradual. Phaedrus of ZAMM tries correctly > > to point this out and show that there were realities before the > > scientific revolution - the levels below the 4th. - but Pirsig of LILA > > forgets this and violates his own insight by making the MOQ a > > mere description of a Quality reality that has existed from the > > beginning of time. > > > > Think for a change. > > > > Bo > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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/ > > > > 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/
