Roger, Jonathan and all MD.
> JONATHAN:
> They say that actual "direct" experience
> is the MAP we have been talking about, but not necessarily the
> TERRAIN. We never experience see the terrain "directly" - it is
> always imaged from a distance or surveyed through instruments.
> Furthermore, even the most detailed map ignores the huge > >
majority
> of bumps and details that might be recorded!
> I will repeat what I said in the "Maps & Metaphors" thread of long
> ago. Reality is the map itself, not some "absolute" terrain.
> Reality is the world of experiences that have been REALised and
> mapped. Rather than one map, it is a series of joining maps. When
> we look carefully at the joints, we may see contradictions,
> necessitating some corrections to be made. This revision of the map
> is a revision of reality. Whereas we once accepted the reality of
> the earth occupying the centre of the universe, the reality of
> today is different
I agree with Jonathan up to the "joint" point. This is the
quintessence of the SOM/MOQ controversy and IMO it supports
my side of the "Jo/Bo controversy" (if anyone has nailed the S/O
as a METAPHYSICS before Pirsig), but Jonathan goes on to
present them as two adjoining (map) sheets where differences
show at the joints ...necessitating some corrections. He brings the
eart-centered vs the sun-sentered cosmology as an example. An
excellent example.
The Copernican cosmos was no "correction" - small or big - it
was revolution; everything changed, and this is my very point:
Before Copernicus nobody had identified any earth-centered C O S
M O L O G Y in contrast to some else-where-centred cosmology
The earth was cosmos. Full stop! If some contemporary theory
says that the centre of the universe is in the galactical supergroup
eight instead of dupergroup ..... nobody bats an eyelid, the
Ptolemaian-Copernicus transition was the revolution, everything
after has just been "corrections".
May I tell that when little an aunt of mine - born in the late
eightenth century hotly contested the Copernican view. Think of it:
more that three hundred years afterwards the enormity of it still
reverbrated.
Likewise the SOM-MOQ cannot be harmonized in any other way
than we still speak of the sun "going up" with the true context in
mind. After a MOQ transition we will use the S/O terms but without
their old metaphysical load.
> ROGER: (in response to Jonathan above)
> Well said. I think I agree. I would add only that according to
> the MOQ, this REALized and mapped reality is distinct from
>what Pirsig refers to as "Dynamic Quality",which he calls "the
> base of reality." Would you agree?
Roger's comment and question is to Jonathan, but may I offer my
opinion on this most inrtigueing question?
If we regard the SOM as one self-sufficient reality and the MOQ
another, the Dynamic/Static distinction cannot be viewed in light of
the subject-object logic, and the question smacks of ...how -
objectively seen - is the static different from dynamic?
It may be compared to a Ptolemaian asking a Copernican about
the distinction between up and down, presupposing that it still
applied. I see no other way to avoid becoming bogged down in the
same mire we just left.
Thanks for reading?
Bo
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
