BO:
I noticed Rick's query about Pirsig's statement about time...
> What I'm really interested in is a more
> explicit statement of the conflict with the MoQ...
> I remember that Pirsig wrote in a letter to... somebody (maybe
Bo?)
> that time is one first static patterns to emerge from DQ (does
anybody
> else remember this???). This developmental placement of time
puts it
> squarely in the realm of IPoVs, the first patterns. As such, time
> would be one of those "laws of nature by which inorganic
patterns
> triumph over chaos (LILA p.183)." --- This would seem to suggest
(at
> least to me) that the MoQ would describe time not as "fixed" per
se...
> but rather just "more fixed" than chaos... which leaves room for
> relativity....right?
and checked my "Pirsig letters" file, but did not find it there. It
might have been in a letter to Anthony McWatt though, at least I
am pretty sure that Rick is right about this. >>
ROG:
Below is a response to anthony from Pirsig in the Ant paper available on the
WWW.:
"As I understand the first paradox alleged here, the MOQ inconsistently
states that time created the static universe and also states that time is not
a part of the static universe. You can't have it both ways. The answer, I
think, is that according to the Metaphysics of Quality, time and change did
NOT act to evolve the static universe. Only Dynamic Quality did this. "Time"
and "change" are primary concepts used to describe this evolution but they do
not cause evolution any more than Newton's law of gravity causes the earth to
stick together. Except where muscle tissue is involved, concepts do not push
inorganic matter around."
Hope this clears up some issues.
Rog
PS -- Jonathan, you may be right on that last comment.....:^)
------- End of forwarded message -------
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
