Hi Magnus:
> As Ron has pointed out, discreet is not the same as discrete, and the
> consensus
> seems to be that it is discrete we ought to discuss, not discreet.
Correct. I goofed.
> Anyway, I fail to see how harmony would add anything useful. It would
> still make
> fuzzy borders, or fractal as suggested by Arlo I think. And that is by no
> means
> discrete. I simply don't think Pirsig has thought this through, he claims
> one
> thing about the levels (about them being discrete and dependent), but the
> way he
> then describes the levels themselves are not consistent with those
> assumptions.
> That's just not acceptable to me.
Seen from the MOQ the levels consist of moral codes. Codes of physics at
the lowest level try to dominate the codes of biology which in turn try to
overwhelm the codes of society which in turn attempt to smother the codes
of reason and intellectual inquiry. These conflicts between levels reveal
the harmony within each. The behavior of quantum particles is no more like
the behavior of DNA than the behavior of a political rally is like writing
a book. I find this way of viewing phenomena not only acceptable but highly
satisfying with its explanatory power. The MOQ opens up new vistas of
understanding, far exceeding the materialist's "spontaneous emergence from
increasing complexity" that says nothing about Quality.
Platt
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/
