Anders Nielsen (joshu@diku.dk)
Fri, 17 Oct 1997 03:27:45 +0100
> > "And beyond that is an even more compelling reason:
> > societies and thoughts and principles themselves are
> > no more than sets of static patterns. These patterns
> > can't by themselves perceive or adjust to Dynamic
> > Quality. Only a living being can do that."
>
> The key phrase here is '[by] themselves.' Do you agree that Pirsig
> makes it clear that any SPoV in DQ has potential for change?
>
yes, but that's pretty much obvious. You take a rock, and break it in two.
Then you've changed it.
But would you or Pirsig claim that a rock strives towards a situation of
higher quality, an "organic life"-ness?
> Do you agree that no biological patterns could exist were it not for the
> inorganic SPoVs being in DQ? Do you agree that inorganic SPoVs evolve
> and invent new biological SPoVs and so on up the MoQ static pattern
> ladder?
Something in my bones tell me that's wrong. (ref. my rock example above)
> Other members of TLS have broached the topic of how far down the ladder
> we go before the constituents of the SPoVs are not living. The
> classical human-centric SOM view is that only humans are sentient.
-- post message - mailto:skwok@spark.net.hk unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:05 CEST