On 2 Jan 2001, at 21:11, 3dwavedave wrote:
> 4. I thought Bo mentioned something recently (can't find it) about
> static quality as a unity, whole , or one. Pirsig's rhetoric seems to
> emphasize the disjuctions of the levels but given his mystic and Zen
> bent and their emphasis on oneness possibly it's more a matter of our
> misinterpretation.
3WD and Group.
It was over at the MD where I tried to reach Struan Hellier (in wain).
> > While the S/O dichotomy split runs between mind and matter the QM
> > split runs between dynamic/static, so at the static side no
> > dichotomical abyss must be crossed. The static levels - from
> > inorganic to intellect - is a UNITY, no fence between them. Look at
> > them as the spatial dimension; discrete yet one. Mind and matter are
> > both at the static side. Your misunderstanding of Pirsig's idea is
> > based on:
Struan's concern was/is the impression one gets of "experience"
labouring its way up or down through a set of levels ...the social
level his main target. As in my last message I forwarded the space
dimension analogy so as not to become mired in level-relationship-
and-interaction problems. The unity combined with separatedness
is there right before our eyes - no mysticism involved.
An aside (perhaps). I read in a special edition of "Newsweek"
(Issues 2001) the following: "Albert Einstein always said that
thinking like a child was what enabled him to hit upon the theory of
relativity". This added to Pirsig's question/statement : "Should
reality be something only a handful of the most advanced
physicists understand?" (106) affirms my comparison of the Quality
Metaphysics with Relativity. To understand the QM one has to
shed all sophistication. IMO: LEAVE INTELLECT! (not permanently
though :-).
I have also read the December issue of "Discovery" where it was a
lot about the future of computers - if they will become conscious -
and I sensed a groping for a more quality-like approach whose
most prominent difference from the SOM is its shedding of the
"consciousness" idea. Intellect is no awakening from slumber, but
out of society!!. One Hans Moravec says something that hit me
strongly.
> "I think it (computers) is conscious for the same reason that humans
> are conscious. The ROOT OF OUR CONSCIOUSNESS IS THAT WE THINK ABOUT
> HOW WE FEEL." (my capitals)
Emotion is the social "expression" and we rationalize (objectivize)
feelings. This is worlds apart from SOM, yet I doubt if Moravec
would understand if someone pointed out the Quality Metaphysics
(I have stopped writing to magazines and authors), but the trend is
clear and some day Pirsig will be "revenged". Things change fast
these days.
Bo
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
