Hi meta gals and guys:
I've only been posting on this (or any) blog for a month or so and two
things are very noticeable:
No matter what topic you start with the conversation has an unlimited
opportunity to expand into other topics. This is opposite to my previous
experience with philosophy which has been to refine the topic into more and
more specific distinctions. I feel that we could go on indefinitely with the
"can of worms" we've opened under, The Quality/MOQ dichotomy, subject line,
and probably will.
And, to someone who is used to consulting three or four books and thinking
about any single point for a month or so before tentatively committing it to
paper, you people move at a breakneck speed.
It's the weekend and I have few moments to look into some of the comments
and points made though-out the week. Marsha spotted one of my problems: I
should've started reading Lila at the chapter beginning on page 149 then I'd
have caught her quote about the "not continuous." but "discrete" nature of
spovs and answered her properly. Sorry Marsha.
One of the mistakes I made was misunderstanding the text of Lila at the
bottom of page 151:
"Certainly the novel cannot exist in the computer without a parallel
pattern of voltages to support it. But that does not mean that the novel is
an expression or property of those voltages. It doesn't have to exit in any
electronic circuits at all. It can also reside in magnetic domains on a disk
of a drum or a tape, but again it is not composed of magnetic domains nor is
it possessed by them. It can reside in a notebook but it is not composed of
or possessed by the ink and paper. It can reside in the brain of a
programmer, but even here it is neither composed of this brain nor possessed
by it."
I read programmer and thought RMP meant human being who is capable of
reading and understanding the novel in a language other than words. A review
of the text convinces me that he meant programmer meant some who could
format something like a novel by instructing the computer to create pages,
paragraphs, etc.
My bad. Sorry to all involved.
Bo, you seem to have some belief that humans have some intellectual
difference from other animals that's based on something other than biology.
We'll no doubt get into that.
Ham, I'm what Pirsig calls a materialist so I look forward to some
enlightening exchanges with you too.
The whole week has been exciting for me. I've learned something about your
positions and had a chance to get a deeper understanding of chapter twelve.
Pirsig is undoubtedly a genius, but he's not a God. Much has been gained by
his analysis but I think we can build on it.
I propose a new subject line: Quality a definition.
Has anyone else noticed the similarity between RMP's distinction between DQ
and SQ and David Hume's (A Treatise of Human Nature) distinction between
current experience and recollected experience?
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/
