[MD] The MOQ's First Principle

[Heather Perella]

> [Case]
> I regard all talk of level as metaphorical.
> Sometimes things look this was
> sometimes they look that way. The value of metaphors
> is they provide a
> structure for looking. But if the light changes or
> we change our perspective
> things look differently. I assume everyone know the
> story of the blind men
> and the elephant. It is a parable about metaphors.
> We are able to make
> gestalt shifts where this illusion of reality
> transforms itself all at once
> into something completely different.
> The problem with taxonomy is that too often it
> implies rigidity. Things are
> this way. This gets lumped here and that gets lumped
> there. Taxonomies of
> ideas or abstractions are especially troublesome
> since they is nothing for
> them to conform to. Freud is a example of abstract
> taxonomy run amok.


     This is why Kant came up with 'Ought', he noticed
a fault in Aristotle's 'Being', and Pirsig came up
with MoQ for he, as well, noticed a fault, thus,
clarified further what reality is according to what he
states in the MoQ.  Zen has its' degenerative aspect
as well, if you read the East and West:  MoQ
clarification [MD] I posted.  Thus, as you state
above, the rigidity in classification, such as
taxonomy, is that the anomalies or troublesome
unconformities don't fit but this is why Zen went as
deep as it went with Nothingness or Emptiness, and the
MoQ introduced dynamic quality to leave open the
eventual, to allow for creativity, and nature is
creative.  Those TITs are creative, notice evolution. 
So, we've got these levels, and some TITs aren't
fittin', but why does everything have to fit into a
category when you've got a spare room called dq that
will allow for overflow, creativity, which wouldn't
even neutral genes be near and dear to dq, but they
are sq, don't get me wrong.  These are TITs that have
not quite gone into the scope of evolutions selection
for their neutrality, but scientists find them.  What
could these neutral genes possible be one day?  They
aren't anything now, just enough of something to put
into biological level, but they're neutral when it
comes to adaptability.  These are the facets that
bridge between just inorganic (neutral genes being
chemical elements and such), and biological creatures,
for these neutral genes are apart of biological
creatures, but out of biological evolutions scope. 
Spandrels... now that's a TIT that is really blank,
but on the biological level, thus, is a static pattern
that could biologically become a major player some
day.
     How does a TIT be creative, even change into a
structure that is within biological evolutions scope
of selection, thus, a structure being used for
adaptability?  What is that TIT that is not this or
that, but could be this or that someday, it is just
'neutral'?  I'd say a static pattern that is not dead,
a total TIT, that can't be anything else.  How sq and
dq interact during their creative split, at least on
the biological level, would be noticed more
first-hand, more clearly when these neutral genes are
studied wouldn't you say?  It's like those mosquitoes
in England that mutated and their mutation was
observed by human beings, that was evolution on a
timescale right before our eyes, not just fossils look
like that and now look at these creatures today kind
of thing.

dark and cold, very cold,
SA


 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.
http://new.mail.yahoo.com