Hello all!
>PLATT
> > Would you be so good as to elaborate. For example, "The Universe is
> > true to its nature" is a tautology--the Universe is true to the
>Universe.
> > What am I missing?
>
>It is indeed a tautology, or to put it another way a TRUISM.
>It's like saying "two parallel lines never meet".
>
>I LIKE tautologies.
Hm... I agree that "the universe is true to its nature," in that it is the
universe and therefore has to be true to its nature, by definition. The same
is true of "two parallel lines never meet." The problem occurs when the
definitions of the words, not the essence of what the words are, are
unclear. What we commonly call the "universe" now is perhaps not what the
world "universe" actually encompasses. Certainly there would be no
conceivable way to have multiple Universes, since a Universe is, well, a
Universe. But there is a way for there to be multiple universes, a word
pointing to a different structure of hierarchies altogether. The same again
with parallel lines. The idea of "parallel" is that of two lines never
crossing at some point. But a perfectly reasonable and verifiable geometry
can be conceived where parallel lines do meet at some point. This would seem
to negate that parallel lines cannot meet, but it really doesn't. It is more
that "some pair of lines that have the same characteristics of Parallel-ness
can meet, and for convenience we will call them parallel as well."
> > Finally, the "order" in the Universe is a man-made conception as you've
> > rightly pointed out before. Yet most scientists take it for granted that
>an
> > order exists in the universe--independent of our conceptions--that
> > mathematics and measurement can uncover.
> >
>
>It is a man-made assumption that has proved invaluable. Without that
>assumption, nothing has meaning and nothing has value - quality
>disintegrates
>(therefore reality disintegrates !!!??).
>To ask where the order comes from, whether it is subjective or objective,
>is
>to miss the point of the MoQ.
The lack of understanding does not negate the existence of Quality. An
assumption is made at the intellectual level which allows for there to be
intellectual static PoVs, but levels prior to that, social, biological and
inorganic, have no conception of assumptions or have any need for them, and
they are still able to both experience Quality and progress towards Quality.
Besides, even with that assumption nothing has meaning. As far as we are
concerned in what is meant by meaning, that is. It is as Pirsig states, the
MoQ and attempting to understand it is an immoral act. It is a lower order
PoV trying to devour a higher order one, DQ.
>PS. to Platt . . .
>
>"hydrogen and oxygen atoms combine to create water because" it is in their
>NATURE to do so.
But they can also combine to create hydrogen peroxide. It too is in the
nature to do so. So why should the combination making water occur any more
often? A long winded explanation could be expounded on the inorganic laws of
nature, no doubt, but go far enough back and I believe the answer is because
those laws were created (or work they way they do, however you want to say
it) as a result of a Dynamic progression breaking free of some static PoV.
Quality gives things their "nature," nature does not make things have
Quality, or make them value one thing over another.
Brian
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
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
