Hi, Platt and Squad
(Sorry Platt if I spliced you words in the wrong order. Your post
arrived rather garbled).
>’DQ is potential? Nowhere in Pirsig's writings do I find any evidence
of
>your assertion that DQ is mere possibility.
You are quite right. Pirsig didn't use the words potential or
possibility in describing DQ.
[snip]
>DQ is the migration of static patterns in its quest for freedom from
stifling static >patterns.
Yes! If the LS restricts exclusively to using Pirsig's words and
Pirsig's descriptions, we will be stifled.
>
>To assert that DQ is potential sounds to me more like what a quantum
>physicist might say than what Pirsig actually says. I wonder if maybe
>re trying to squeeze the MOQ into a scientific paradigm.
Maybe I'm trying to fit accepted scientific into the MoQ framework.
"Potential" has a clear meaning in physics related to energy and work
(and via thermodynamics, to possibility).
Potential also has wider common meanings. Physicists didn't adopt the
word by accident.
IMO the "MoQ approach" would be to seek out common words for common
concepts.
Regards to all,
Jonathan
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:35 BST