Hi Krimel,Arlo,Platt dmb and all, Krimel says: I agree completely here. It seems to me that Platt and dmb are attempting to read choice and intention into even the inorganic level. I don't see how this differs from theology in the least. Platt sneers a chance but at least acknowledges some kind of vague theological convictions. Dave, just pretends that whatever it is he is saying, it is not theology.
Andre: A few posts ago I quoted Pirsig at lenght in the light of the chemistry professor analogy. First things first: DQ is not 'chance', nor 'intent' , nor 'poof'' ,nor anything teleological in the theological sense. It is the undifferentiated aesthetic continuum. Secondly. positing a 'thread' as the 'ineffable' before anything else..., positing this from growing up/and reflecting on 20th Century, American society (and history in general), Pirsig saw a morality, a something towards betterness, a something towards freedom from, and he called this Quality. This can only be done in hindsight. Because, as Pirsig says himself, all our intellectualisations after the Q-experience are based on analogues, memories and memories, analogues etc etc. Again I ask, how do you tell the brujo, be it photon. atom,cell, human being, intellectual pattern) from its counterpart? I am sure there have been countless counterparts but the ones that have 'survived' are what we have and see/experience ( perhaps not appreciate [low quality] but that is beside the point). Pirsig also stating that the MoQ starts with sentience, can be understood in the way that pre-sentience responses to DQ followed strict sets of, what we have identified as 'laws'( of quantum physics [mathematics] of physics etc), this changes with sentients , our freedom to interpret DQ became greater ( the strict laws of perish or survive do not apply so much anymore), it did not simply entail a choice between survival or not...we are far more advanced that this. What I am getting at is that DQ does't do anything. WE respond to it as we see fit and this depends on our static patterns; our vested interests, how much we have to lose or gain in our isolated psychic cells, and the sizes of our bankaccounts, and the celebrity/or not connections we have with God, Buddha, Paul Newman or the man/woman next door. That makes the difference. We have the intellectual choice, but are very much torn between choices based on biological and or social patterns of value. Bottom line is: the choice is ours, and DQ has no influence in/on this. It only suggests that we act morally, i.e in harmony. For what it is worth. Andre 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/
