Subject: | Re: [Quantonics}: Roger's latest input. |
Date: | Fri, 03 Sep 1999 15:16:37 -0700 |
From: | Dan Glove <Flameproof> |
Organization: | n/a |
To: | quantonics email list post <quantonics@topica.com> |
(To post to our email list, you must subscribe. See instructions
on our top page.)
(Minor edits, spelling, who wrote/writes, etc.)
Quantonics Email List Message
Doug wrote:
If you have any MoQ Assumptions re: Quality Events,
Interrelationships, etc., send them to our list for addition
to our next group of MoQ Assumptions.
I think 4, 5, and 6 are pretty much direct quotes of
Pirsig. Except for grammatical syntax, form, etc. they
should pretty much hold. Anyone disagree?
Rog wrote:
I agree with all three assumptions, but reserve judgment on
the
relationship between the assumptions. Both are essential in the
MoQ.
Dan writes:
I agree pretty much with these assumptions too.
Doug wrote:
How are we doing on our list of SOM-MoQ compatible
assumptions, and our list of SOM-MoQ incompatible
assumptions? Beth asked me to tell her a few, and I was
able to real off a bunch of incompatible ones (e.g.,
quantumesque ones), but I could not think quickly of any
compatible ones. So those, to me, would be most
interesting. (Dan, we're back to arguing for/against SOTAQI
(?) again. :) Do you remember any of Bo's heuristics on
SOM-MoQ compatibles?)
Dan writes:
I've yet to really grasp Bodvar's essential heuristics of SOTAQI
and I
suspect he himself has difficulty as well. Just 2 days ago Bo
wrote and
invited me to be part of this month's discussion in TLS, which
happens to be
on just this subject. I find such coincidences fascinating and
wonder if it
is coincidental at all. I will see if anything interesting comes
of our
discussion and share it, if you wish.
Compatible MOQ-SOM assumptions... that is tough. In re reading
Zen and the
Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, I came across this:
"A person who sees Quality and feels it as he works is
a person who cares."
(Chap. 24)
In some fashion, there must be assumptions of care built into
both
metaphysical systems, and indeed all metaphysical systems. It
seems to me
that if we discover compatible MOQ-SOM assumptions, these assumptions
are
what we might term 'universal' in scope, working now, in all times
past, and
in all future times. To care seems like one of these universal
assumptions
necessary for us to become aware of preconditional values in everyday
life.
Can we build assumptions around caring? Or is caring implicit
in all
assumptions? What does it mean to care? I cannot answer that question,
try
as I might. I might say caring means to give full attention, but
why should
this be so? In our value-centered universe, caring about value
creates
reality. This leads me to believe there are no universal assumptions
apart
from our caring. This strikes me as very preposterous and almost
incomprehensible in subject/object metaphysics but that is simply
because it
has been covered up. It's there though, implicitly, and perhaps
by becoming
aware of caring we are led into ever more expanding realms of
metaphysical
understandings of reality. It is not what we care about at all,
or who it is
who cares. Caring is what it's all about, I suppose.
Best wishes
Dan
Quantonics Email List Message