> > Dan: > Like the principles of gravity, there are many interpretations of the > principles of thermodynamics. I would say all support the concept of > value, however, otherwise they would not exist. Someone thought them > up, so they had value to someone. They didn't just pop into being.
[Mark] I am not sure if this is correct, perhaps you could provide a reference as to what you mean. It would seem you are defining value through existence. Is it possible that things of value do not exist? No, they did not pop into being, we created them. Our ability to create may have popped into being. You present a good dilemma here, thanks. > >>Mark: >> Now, something better is very similar to the concept of something >> surviving, so I do not see much difference in the paragraph above from >> conventional evolutionary theory. > > Dan: > Exactly. [Mark] I would have to pose to you the same question that Pirsig asked. How does tying value to existence provide meaning to you? This is what drove him away from science as you know. Have you come full circle? > >>> [Mark previously] If we mutate to become dynamic quality, I do >> not see the mechanism with which I can explain this. > > Dan: > Exactly. There is no mechanism. That is what Robert Pirsig is saying. [Mark] OK, now we are getting somewhere again, I compliment you on that interpretation. Evolution is mechanistic, and as you say there is no mechanism. > > Dan: > I assumed you understood the quote about Lila being a collection of > four patterns of value. Obviously you do not. Again, that is why you > need to read the book, read the book, read the book, etc. [Mark] Yes, I know that is your posture. I have heard the mantra from you before. Again, remember that this is an analogy. Lila does not necessarily need to be a collection of four patterns, this is just the way in which Pirsig presents it to help us understand what he is talking about. You may be a little stuck, and as others in this forum, you seem to be hung up on words. Try to think of another way to present what Pirsig is pointing to, this may help you. The MoQ is a door to perception. Once open it provides an intimate relationship with the cosmos. It is counterproductive to seal that door tight with a complex set of locks (words), which then require somebody to provide the key. You are not a key master, or a gate keeper. All that is needed is a door knob. Anyone can open the door, there is no password as you suggest. One can use the right words all day long, and still have the wrong idea. Perhaps if you think about this, you will not be so defensive. I am doing my best here and you seem to be moving forward. Pirsig would be proud. Best of luck, Mark > 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/md/archives.html > 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/md/archives.html
