To: David B, Denis (&Platt) From: Roger DENIS P: You want to remember that the Static/Dynamic split isn't a "reality" (whatever this means) but a useful intellectual pattern of value, that enables us to make distinctions about our experiences, and the way we assign good or bad values to them. Man is the measure of things static and dynamic. Beyond this is Quality, about which the less said the better. DAVID B: I'm not sure how much detail I can go into in this post. I don't have much time, but there are two major points where we disagree. If I read your most recent post correctly, we disagree about the static/Dynamic split. You seem to be saying it is just a matter of our perceptions. And I think you go way too far with the concept of "many truths". Together they have the effect of saying that reality is just in our heads AND the truth is just whatever we like. What a mess! ROGER P: Now that we have reached a consensus on free will, do you want to bring up this nature-of-reality issue again? I disagree with David that the effect of Denis' statements above leads to "reality is just in our heads AND the truth is just whatever we like." Reality is direct experience. The final arbiter of truth is direct experience. I agree completely with Denis' quote (and even forgive him for his bad choice of words regarding 'actual patterns' a few days ago ;-)) To quote Pirsig, both the MOQ and SOM are "simply intellectual patterns for interpreting reality." The dynamic/static split is just "a better set of coordinates with which to interpret the world". Rog PS -- I have no comment to Platt or Denis' posts yesterday other than that we appear in complete agreement MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
