Hi there!
There is little point in trying to be dynamic in this forum, for it comprises
a small group of self congratulatory individuals who have nothing better to
do than indulge each other.
No doubt Horse will jump in and chat a load of static reinforcing garbage at
this point.
I have noticed that Bo, who i admire a great deal, does not deal with the
dynamic stuff.
Yawn.
Squonk.
In a message dated 2/23/02 8:52:37 PM GMT Standard Time,
ramrod@madasafish.com writes:
<< Subj: Re: MD Moving on from Lila
Date: 2/23/02 8:52:37 PM GMT Standard Time
From: ramrod@madasafish.com (Rod)
Sender: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
Reply-to: moq_discuss@moq.org
To: moq_discuss@moq.org
Squonk, all
wow a like mind!!
I'm very interested to hear any ideas you have regarding time, it seems to
me, that time is one of the few things unaffected by the whole quality
argument. I can't think of a way in which time ( which I assume is dynamic )
and quality relate, unless they are part of the same thing.. now there's a
thought to dwell on
Could time be a function of quality or vice versa
probably not, as time is relative to speed ( relativity ), and I doubt speed
of travel through space affects the quality value system.
But is quality relative to time, always.. even the smallest sub atomic
particles have preferential states, states of good and bad quality, and
these change over time... very small fractions of time yes, but they are not
instantaneous.
In fact no quality event is instantaneous
Rod
on 2/23/02 1:31 PM, SQUONKSTAIL@aol.com at SQUONKSTAIL@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 2/23/02 12:27:01 PM GMT Standard Time,
> ramrod@madasafish.com writes:
>
> << Subj: MD Moving on from Lila
> Date: 2/23/02 12:27:01 PM GMT Standard Time
> From: ramrod@madasafish.com (Rod)
> Sender: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
> Reply-to: moq_discuss@moq.org
> To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>
> Hi everybody
>
> I really thought that by joining this group, I would be able to discuss
> ideas that arose within me from reading ZMM and Lila.
>
> But it seems the majority of the discussions are critiques of what Pirsig
> said or intended to say!!
> Getting bogged down in the details of these books is like discussing the
> individual bricks which make up a great building- you miss seeing the
> building as it was meant to be seen, as a whole.
>
> I would really love to hear some " original " thoughts - something fresh
>
> These books have changed the way I view the world, but they are not a new
> bible for me , they are only the key to a door. A door we all have to pass
> through if we are going to move on beyond it, it may be scary to us to say
> something we are not certain of, for fear of ridicule from more
> knowledgable, more wise individuals, but I would rather be challenged at
> every turn, be made to think, than to have a smooth passage free of mental
> obstacles.
>
> I want to be pushed to be made to think anew
>
> Rod
>>>
>
> Absolutely!!!
> I agree 100%
> I share your view completely friend.
>
> My own effort to 'move on from Lila' has been thinking regarding Time.
> A small effort, but hopefully in the spirit of which you mentioned.
>
> All the best,
> Squonk. >>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
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 - 16:01:53 BST