Howdy Doc According to this video: http://msnvideo.msn.com/?channelindex=4&from=en-us_msnhp#/video/85746905-0ab0-c6c7-c62f-97b5c11eac09 there is still some work to be done about attitude that seems to be more valuable than reason.
Dan Glover's last text gave me an idea how to get more practical: What about drawing a map or an encyclopedia over the four levels where different situations can be located and how they are handled by MOQ reason instead of by an attitude that stems from pure power preservation and stubborn stupidity? Including a list of all ways a person might behave to avoid being reasonable. I think we have some material in here, too. This kind of catalogue might be handy for anyone that would like to discuss something here but need to check if it has already been discussed. The Static Pattern Catalogue of MOQ Issues! "It's a human's goddamned duty to be happy." (Hans Alfredsson) Jan-Anders 19 mar 2013 kl. 02.45 Ant McWatt wrote: > Marsha then asked Ant: > > Have YOU got anything original to offer? > > > Ant McWatt responds: > > No, > not today, Marsha... I read both ZMM and Lila each within a few > years of their publication dates and have lived with these ideas for a > sizable chunk of my life now. If I could say something in person to Dr. > Pirsig now, it would probably be: "Thanks, for nothing." I find my > view of the world so out of sync with the culture around me that it is > difficult to carry on even casual conversations much of the time. But on > the other hand I can no longer imagine that land of shadow I have been > lifted from. > > Pirsig's book certainly caused a paradigm shift for > me but I have noticed that just because a paradigm shifts doesn't mean > everyone shifts with it. You don't have to throw many rocks on a crowded > street to hit a Newtonian! No one speaks much of the quantum paradigm > other than to comment on how disturbing it is, but to me it is part and > parcel to the MOQ. The central characteristic of Quality, the Tao, is > its uncertain nature. It can not be defined, only experienced. Couple > this with Godel's Theorem that there is uncertainty even at the heart of > mathematics and the creaking sound you hear are paradigms shifting > around you. > > So I'm still dealing with various > philosophological issues to do with the MOQ. But who knows > about the future? And, anyway, the MOQ (having been published very > recently in philosophical terms) is no where near being "stewed" yet. > It's still a whole new country of the mind! > > Yours pioneeringly, > > Doc McWatt 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
