Hi Bodvar and all,
> > JONATHAN:
> > I will repeat what I said in the "Maps & Metaphors" thread of long
> > ago. Reality is the map itself, not some "absolute" terrain.
> > Reality is the world of experiences that have been REALised and
> > mapped. Rather than one map, it is a series of joining maps. When
> > we look carefully at the joints, we may see contradictions,
> > necessitating some corrections to be made. This revision of the map
> > is a revision of reality. Whereas we once accepted the reality of
> > the earth occupying the centre of the universe, the reality of
> > today is different
>
BODVAR:
> I agree with Jonathan up to the "joint" point. This is the
> quintessence of the SOM/MOQ controversy and IMO it supports
> my side of the "Jo/Bo controversy" (if anyone has nailed the S/O
> as a METAPHYSICS before Pirsig), but Jonathan goes on to
> present them as two adjoining (map) sheets where differences
> show at the joints ...necessitating some corrections. He brings the
> eart-centered vs the sun-sentered cosmology as an example. An
> excellent example.
>
> The Copernican cosmos was no "correction" - small or big - it
> was revolution; everything changed, and this is my very point:
Bodvar, I think that we can extend the agreement further. I fully accept
your point that sometimes it is easier to completely redraft the maps
than make corrections. However, even the redrafts contain some of the
old elements - thus I consider the question of correction vs. revolution
as a question of degree.
> Before Copernicus nobody had identified any earth-centered C O S
> M O L O G Y in contrast to some else-where-centred cosmology
What is interesting about Copernicus is that he didn't make any claim to
a new philosophy. He looked at Ptolemy's complicated mathematics and
found that he could provide an equivalent but simpler mathematical
description of planetary movements by using the Sun rather than the
Earth as a fixed reference point. Copernicus believed that all he was
changing was the description, not the reality.
> The earth was cosmos. Full stop! If some contemporary theory
> says that the centre of the universe is in the galactical supergroup
> eight instead of dupergroup ..... nobody bats an eyelid, the
> Ptolemaian-Copernicus transition was the revolution, everything
> after has just been "corrections".
Bo is right. The centrality of planet earth was never even considered an
issue until it became an issue. The same is true of the existence of
God, the eternity of the British Empire and the rock-steadiness of
American democracy. Such is the nature of all assumptions.
> Likewise the SOM-MOQ cannot be harmonized in any other way
> than we still speak of the sun "going up" with the true context in
> mind. After a MOQ transition we will use the S/O terms but without
> their old metaphysical load.
The MoQ serves to question SO assumptions, and to remind us that they
are ONLY assumptions.
To believers in the absolute truth of the SO worldview, this is indeed
earthshaking. However the skeptics accept it lightly, like a Californian
reacts to an earth tremor.
Jonathan
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:50 BST