{Ron]
But that is actuallly what is happening with the concept of negation
and Wilburs
Ontology, that through falsability they arrive at a explaination of the
workings of "source".
Pirsig takes value down to "dynamic quality" an lets it go. Wilbur and
the like take
it one step further and use true/false logic to set it on the firm
foundation of "nothingness".
I think this is where Krimmel battles.
Pirsigs take on "betterness" seems to be an extension of the theory
Of "molecular self assembley", rather than a means to an end or an
"omega point".
[Krimel]
I take scientism to mean the kind of thing you get from Dawkins, Dennett,
Weinberg, and E.O. Wilson. If the choice is between those guys and touchy
feely new agers like Wilber I really don't have a problem with the label.
Pirsig offers up a metaphysics that states directly what physics and
mathematics are telling us. Reality can not be defined. It is composed
moment to moment of static and dynamics patterns. These patterns are self
similar across scale.
I think Pirsig and certainly many of the MoQers do not really get how
interesting this is. Note Pirsig's dismissal of the idea that the MoQ would
be a metaphysics of randomness. Boy, he missed the boat by not running with
that idea.
There is a contingent here, supported in part by Pirsig's own inclinations,
that seems to think this is all about Zen or something like Zen... I have
attempted many times to say that Zen is Taoism infected with mysticism.
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/
