David:
The root of the fallacy is his failure to realize that the novel only exists
physically in the brains of the writer and readers. The pattern of voltages,
magnetic domains and ink and paper representations of the novel are only
symbols and have no meaning until a living brain decodes them. It may seem a
small point and is certainly open to question and argument but it has
implications for the MoQ in that it might ultimately (horror of horrors)
define DQ.
Ron:
What is a living brain but the result of the processes Pirsig described in your
quote?
The living brain, the self, is just as illusionary and shadowy as the novel.
which was the paralell he was drawing.
How does one define something that does not really exist as an entity?
Marsha responded:
I had my computer training at a technical college, I understand
>on & off switches and machine language. Cobol was my language of poetry,
>but I debugged many a program reading computer dumps and seeking out
>what was in a particular register and location.
David:
You are in a unique position to realize the relationship between the levels
of symbol used in a computer. I was tipped off by my late brother who could
code in binary the way most of us write in words. But here I'm interested in
the final conversion where the light energy from a screen or reflected light
from the page physically enters the eyes and by the machinations of the mind
becomes meaning.
Marsha:
>Thank you for the opportunity to read this portion of Lila
>again. They are important pages.
>
>First lets agree we're ignoring the nature of the patterns and we're
>going to talk about the referents: brains, novels, individual,
>voltages, ink, paper, the MOQ levels, and the relationship between
>them. Right?
David:
I'm good.
Marsha:
- I understand the static world of patterns and levels
>to represent the Buddhist concept of conventional reality, the human
>sandbox.
David:
A question, are you talking about the sand sorting metaphor for the world in
ZAMM or should I be reading something on Buddhist cosmology? If so, can you
recommend something simple?
>
Marsha:
>The individual is an ever-changing, collection of interrelated and
>interconnected, inorganic, biological, social and intellectual, static
>patterns of value responding to Dynamic Quality.
David:
Absolutely! Are you reading my mind?
Marsha:
The different
>'individual' collections of patterns are as alike as snowflakes.
>
>On the few pages sited, there are a number of different problems
>discussed. Are you specifically addressing the fact that a pattern,
>its function, is discreet to its level, but required all underlying
>levels for its evolution?
David:
No I hadn't considered that incongruent. Is there something special about
it?
Marsha:
A brain to me is a biological
>pattern. I do not equate brain and mind. Do you see it differently?
David:
Agreed, brain is a biological spov.
Agreed, brain and mind are not equal, but the way I see it brain is the
largest organ in the set of organs that make up the mind. I agree with
Epicurus, "The soul doesn't see through the eye, as through a window. If
that were so the soul would see better without the eye. It is the eye itself
that sees."
The way I see it the sense organs are the parts of the mind that experience
DQ. In my way of seeing things mind and body are with minor exceptions
synonymous.
Marsha:
>Where, specifically is your discomfort?
David:
Pirsig seems to be saying that novels don't physically exist, that it's an
intellectual idea. Poof, it's here and poof, it's gone. Well, my problem
with that is that eventually something has to push something. Ideas have to
be physical if they're going to affect behaviour. Ideas have to be physical
if they're going to push muscles. No one is buying Descartes' idea that the
pineal gland allows mental to affect physical anymore.
Marsha:
I think science is in the room.
> Hmmm. If I'm correct, and science is in the room, let me add a word or
two.
The MoQ, for me, is a world-view to which science is subordinate. Science
is a subject/object subset of the MoQ world-view and cannot be used to
evaluate or explain it.
>
David:
Not physics; metaphysics. My question to you, Bo, Ham and anyone is, is
Quality physical? Forget S/OM and especially subjects, science demands a
strictly objective metaphysics. Is the MoQ that metaphysics? I think you and
your associates are the people to chew this idea over with. -david swift
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/
