> > > [Platt] > > > You assumption is that the laws of physics and cosmology are the only > > > credible explanations of the world and its creation. Time to break out > of > > > your box with a careful reading of Lila. > > > > > > [Case] > > > Once again, since my reading is manifestly so sloppy, where does Pirsig > > > claim to be writing a work on cosmology and to be upending the laws of > > > physics. It seems a fair question. > > > > [Platt] > > You're reading can't be that sloppy. Of course Pirsig makes no overt claim > > as you suggest. But he does claim there is more to the world that is > dreamt > > of in the laws of physics and cosmology. He calls it "Quality." > > > > [Case] > > Then why do you raise it in opposition to prevailing theories of physics > and > > cosmology? In what way does Pirsig's view even call these theories into > > question? > > [Platt] > I don't raise it in opposition. I raise it because it offers an explanation > other that "Shit happens." > > [Case] > And the difference is?
[Platt] A higher quality explanation. [Case] Which is? 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
