> [Ron to Ham]
> Interesting, I did not perceive Pirsig as stating
> this in his ontology.
I agree with you Ron.
[Ron]
> I had the impression that Pirsig was stating that
all existence is
> dynamic.
Again, agree.
[Ron]
> What we perceive as physical reality are the more
static patterns of
> dynamic quality (that which changes slower and may
be percieved)
> for there are no true constants and thus there is
nothing which is
> immutable or absolute.
Again, agree. Ham likes to argue for an
immutable and absolute so he can solidify his desire
for what he unpoetically, thus must have copied from
somebody else, Essence.
[Ron]
> I think you are interpreting MOQ. DQ and SQ
dualisticly.
Agree with your assertion here.
[Ron]
> Your logic and your ontology seems of a dualistic
nature for it rests > on the tension of opposites.
Again, agree.
[Ron]
> When MOQ is interpretd in this light it does not
work logically by
> those standards.
Agree.
[Ron]
> My impression was that RMP was dropping opposites
for patterns of > value.
Again, agree. DQ is SQ in other words Quality.
It's the oneness, the ridding of the paradoxal
opposites into a whole other experience that is not
just intellectual, but also social, organic,
inorganic, and on all levels directly experienced in a
way that can't be locked onto one level only (called
the intellectual). Ham's reality is seemingly just
intellectual - all in the head.
woods,
SA
____________________________________________________________________________________
Got a little couch potato?
Check out fun summer activities for kids.
http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=summer+activities+for+kids&cs=bz
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/
