Date sent: Sat, 5 Jun 1999 06:56:06 -0700 Dear Jerry: I respect you. I see some of myself in you and hope you won't take offense to that. I want to share some thoughts and ideas with you. The attached message was in response to a request by a philosopher friend to view some pages at the end of these URLs: http://www.moq.org You can also read the quantum physics explanation at: http://www.quantonics.com The Quantonics site is the logical application to language of the science of quantum physics within the framework of MoQ, i.e., Metaphysics of Quality. The link to the moq.org site leads to a Natural Law article (the 2nd on the page) where the author applies MoQ to social issues in the 3rd or 4th chapter and does a pretty good job of it, too, IMO. This is profound stuff. I sincerely hope you will enjoy it and, if you do, maybe you will write me back and share some of your own thoughts. Ms A.
Ms A, Sat June 5, 99 Thanks for your kind words about respect, though I'm not sure what I've done to deserve it. :) I've looked over the URLs briefly, looks like a really deep read. I'll spend some time study over them and your response to Steve. I'm not sure I'll be able to contribute much if anything. It'll take a couple or three of days and I'll get back to you. Philosophy and Metaphysics are not my strong areas, except what I make up for myself. Not that there'll ever be a Jerry Theory. Later Jerry
Date sent: Sat, 5 Jun 1999 18:14:30 -0700 Dear Jerry: It is a tough read. It does require study. The exciting thing is that is may be at the forefront of current thinking so that it could be worth taking the time to understand it within. If it proves to time-consuming, I won't take offense. But, if you want to share your own ideas, I would enjoy hearing them. Take care of yourself. Ms A.
Sunday Jun 20, 99
Ms A,
My apologies for being so late, I said 2 or 3 days and now it's been 2 weeks. I've just begun to disengage my mind from the Columbine Discussion Group. I'm one of those type who latches onto a task and wont let go till it's finished or it finishes me. Sorry.
I started about Wednesday to get my thoughts together about Metaphysics of Quality. The more I looked over the websites and the book (Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, which for the record I've still not read) the more I realized I needed to start from scratch.
So I did, with dictionary definitions of metaphysics, quality; the religious meaning of Zen; and taking notes. Then I realized I was already headed down the wrong path, this book has become more than a novel about "enlightenment" into the "quality" of one's personal life and society. And it's really gotten deep over the past 25 years.
As I read some of the parts in the book about Quality and Metaphysics of Quality at the websites, I found few things with which I could really relate. I'm more of a Physics person and not Metaphysics. I'm use to working with basic, simply stated axioms, rules, theorems and building from them; something which I did not find at MofQ but assume are buried in the philosophy discussion of both the book and MofQ. Nevertheless, I'll make some comments and observations and hope I dont jump to conclusions in a briar patch.
This is still incomplete but I wanted to get some thoughts off to you to let you know I'm at least starting to think about MofQ. Also I hope to continue this exchange.
Later
Jerry
1. Stonehenge.
I know this looks like, "Where did Stonehenge come from out of Metaphysics of Quality?" But as I looked over the book and websites that was the thought that popped into my mind. I've recently finished reading a book about it, Gerald Hawkins' STONEHENGE DECODED 1965.
Actually the question was "What would a MoQ person think of the culture, society and people who built Stonehenge?" Stonehenge was a computer used to calculate the eclispes as well as mark the important points where the sun and moon rose and set, including the total 56 year cycle for the moon. It was a work of art as well as a work of science by a primitive people who built it as a labor of love. It took much of there resources to do it.
Now in parts of ZAMM, Part 1 chapter 6, and some of the forum topics there was mention of a seperation of quality between the classical and romantic views or divorce between science and art. As best I understand Pirsig's believes Quality has become divided between the two points of view or at least preceived as such. Yet, Stonehenge contained both at a really early point in history.
So I wondered what would a MoQ person, who is more knowledgable than I (a total newbie), think of Stonehenge?
2. Milosevic and Adams.
In the "Nature of Natural Law by Rory FitzGerald" forum topic, chapter 4, he makes use of MoQ to show that "This (Gerry Adams) is another example of the benefits of a morality that keeps all the dynamic aspects extant in society."
I couldnt find in MoQ exactly how predicts an individual case, maybe just me being a newbie. Milosevic, after Bosnia, should have been tried and convicted of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Yet, keeping him as part of the dynamic aspects has lead to Kosovo.