Quoting Jorge Goldfarb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > You write: "That's one reason why I for one reject > the subject- object division so prevalent in today's > thinking, preferring the more realistic static-Dynamic > morality division offered by Pirsig." > The question that arises is: is it possible to do > experimental scientific research using "the more > realistic static- Dynamic morality division" instead > of the S/O division?
Not a problem as I see it. Science does experimental research on static patterns of value for the most part. Even such seemingly dynamic phenomenon as the weather is contained within a static pattern, as chaos theory has shown. As Pirsig pointed out in using MOQ phraseology in describing scientific processes, "The language used to describe the data is changed but the scientific data itself is unchanged." (Lila,8) Platt ------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/ 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/
