Hi Bo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Not in Ham's sense, but you can't well deny that humankind are all
> levels, or how to say it.
No, I don't deny that. (But I also know that we interpret that sentence very
differently.)
> I guess the correct way to see things is that
> the biological level brought about the Homo Sapiens who became the
> biological "carbon" for the social development.
But that was way off.
> You may not agree with me that MOQ=SOM, nor that MOQ is out of
> SOM, but my conclusion is that (by this logic) MOQ is out of intellect.
> All levels spawned one ambiguous pattern that became the "carbon"
> for the next level. The patterns you mention all undermined SOM and
> at first I tended to regard modern physics as intellect's "carbon". I have
> however not closed that case.
The "carbon" of intellect is of course language. How can anyone doubt that?
>>> By SOM you hopefully mean what became the 4th. level.
>
>> Of course... not. :)
>
> One can show an ass the water but not force it to drink.
Wrong again. I'll try to avoid getting too graphical but it involved water
skiing and boxer shorts. :-o
>> No problem, as long as you at the same time acknowledge that gravity was
>> around even before the "Gravity explanation" came about, and that Quality
>> was around before Pirsig formulated the "Quality explanation".
>
> There were no gravity only the data of things falling to the ground.
"Only the *data* of things..."???
But what about the THINGS Bo? Didn't the THINGS fall to the ground? I'm talking
about the things. Come on! Reality is about more than just talking about it,
discussing it, and thinking about it. It's out there as well!
If you disregard the *things*, then I understand your constant preachings about
> Thus there was no Quality (in the MOQ sense) before Pirsig.
> Newton's explanation was so good that it soon transformed physics
> (and now so cemented that you have difficulties understanding the
> example). The MOQ explanation is so good that it will (if not that soon)
> transform metaphysics.
I have no difficulty understanding the example, it's you who have difficulty
understanding the (or rather, you pretend there is no) difference between:
Newton's explanation was so good that it soon transformed physics.
and
Newton's explanation was so good that it soon transformed our model of physics.
Magnus
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/
