|Subject:||Re: [Quantonics}: Roger's latest input.|
|Date:||Fri, 03 Sep 1999 15:16:37 -0700|
|From:||Dan Glove <Flameproof>|
|To:||quantonics email list post <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
(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
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?
I agree with all three assumptions, but reserve judgment on
relationship between the assumptions. Both are essential in the MoQ.
I agree pretty much with these assumptions too.
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
I've yet to really grasp Bodvar's essential heuristics of SOTAQI
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."
In some fashion, there must be assumptions of care built into
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
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.
Quantonics Email List Message