From: Magnus Berg (McMagnus@home.se)
Date: Wed Nov 06 2002 - 08:21:40 GMT
Hi Steve, Wim and all of you
> According to me the simplest way to see things (and to correct the
> carelessness of Pirsig and the internal contridications of 'Lila') is thus:
> The levels are a way of distinguishing the different types of static quality
> by their different amounts of Dynamic Quality.
To confuse things even more for poor Steve, my way of distinguishing the
levels is quite opposite from Wim's. The first split is always the DQ/SQ
remember? So, there is no DQ *in* a static level. Sometimes they can be
hard to distinguish from eachother, but try and you will be rewarded
with a better understanding.
Another thing you mentioned caught my attention:
Steve wrote:
> Would you then agree that the levels do not not represent types of
> things, ie types of patterns of value?
I agree to the former but not the latter.
Patterns are not things. Things are *composed* of patterns. All things
you can see and touch are at least composed of inorganic patterns. And
if the are eatable, the are also composed of biological patterns, and so
on. These are the dimensions Jonathan mentioned, correct me if I'm wrong.
Magnus
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 2.1.5 : Wed Nov 06 2002 - 08:22:10 GMT