hiya, > > [gav] > the MOQ is predicated on mystic truth, on the > incontrovertible exclusively > mystical nature of truth. period. to fashion a metaphysics > from this base is > always going to be an essentialy paradoxical affair, why > mess with it - you > just hide truth surely? but then again some analogues point > better than > others to the shiny shiny moon. > > [Krimel] > I understand that this is your view but I don't think > that it is correct.
well krim you are not just disagreeing with me but every enduring metaphysical body of knowledge...maybe you are wrong. > Pirsig says that both scientists and mystics have > objections to metaphysics > in general. He says that the mystics' objections are > more difficult to > overcome but he basically just ignores them both. There are > other ways to > understand the MoQ than from a purely mystical perspective. not if you want to understand it correctly....you are opposing pirsig explicitly and directly here. > If its purpose > is to reconcile scientists and mystics then from your point > of view it fails > before it gets off the ground. no it doesn't. i was a scientist and it worked for me. > > [gav] > obviously you have some degree of attachment krim: you > sense the value in > pirsig's schema otheriwse you wouldn't be such an > ardent, intelligent > poster. all i can say is suspend disbelief: whether its som > or moq - they > are both fictions: see which you like best. don't worry > about which is true > cos truth is like a butterfly: pin it down and you kill it > and fell like a > philistine. > > [Krimel] > Obviously, I am not the only one with attachments. If you > think all this > business about dead butterflies and philistines is true; > why do you suggest > that I employ the scientific method towards making a > choice? i didn't say that. i said suspend disbelief and see which works best out of som and moq, which one you prefer. this isn't the scientific method, this artistic method uses the aesthetic or value response as the arbiter, which science does not. science uses experiments, but these experiments ignore the reality - the base reality - of value, beauty, elegance, harmony...all these so called subjective immeasurables which are inseparable from the reality science clumsily seeks to understand. Aren't you > suggesting that I should, check it out, mess with it and > see what happens? > That, my friend, is the essence of science. no, see how it feels. later bro > > > > 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/ Make the switch to the world's best email. Get Yahoo!7 Mail! http://au.yahoo.com/y7mail 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/
