Nick,

>
> Does what you write about Genesis and the origin of the World apply to
> what Bodvar is quoting about Gravity ??
>


I doubt it.  I think Bodvar went off the deep end quite a while ago and he
thinks the same about me.  We don't agree on much.


Pirsig didn't say gravity didn't exist "objectively".  He said the law of
gravity didn't objectively exist, and he was using logic to confound the
arguments of his enemy.  Because if only "objective facts" are real, then
why is the law of gravity, "real"?  It was "merely" in your head, so
obviously there's a root issue with your metaphysics there...

But we get most of our unspoken assumptions and connotations of "god" from
that old book, and it's important to point out that the modern
interpretations of that book aren't a sound basis for rational discussion.



>
>
> I don’t think I ever quite nailed the ZAMM explanation of Gravity. It
> could be because I’m thinking that there is the concept (law ?) of Gravity
> and the phenomenon of Gravity and maybe even Gravity itself ?!
>

For convenience sake, we divide the world.  It's fine.  Just don't forget
that all this is "Just and analogy". We have a very real concept that we
use to deal with our experience of "gravity" and when we hold that
conceptual scheme lightly, and intelligently, we can use it without being
trapped by it.  We can progress.  That seems to be a good thing,
intellectual evolution toward betterness, wouldn't you agree?

My only argument for a presonal God, is if such a choice, or belief, makes
one's life better.  Makes things cohere.  Makes things work out nicely, in
a poetical and harmonious fashion.  For some people, it's obviously a huge
stoppage, and they should stay away from it till they can handle it, I
guess.  Ideas come to us in their own time.  All we can do is respond
positively or negatively.  The only judgement that matters is the judgement
of time, telling us whether our choice was good or bad.

Royce said if you would know what he meant by "absolute", then forget
rhetorical argument and simply try and undo what has been done.  That's the
only absolute.




> So, I assume, when arguing with a SOMite that Gravity didn’t exist before
> Newton defined it, they would say but the phenomenon of Gravity existed
> before him. The Chinese had witnessed it and described it (not sure that
> that is the case, by the way !)
>
>
>


Short story:  I was around 12 years old and my dad had joined the Santa
Cruz 4Wheel drive club.  We'd go down on the weekends to this place called
Marina where there were these extensive sand dunes and we could play to our
heart's content in Jeeps and dune buggies.  Mountains of sand, trails
through them and no real rules.  It all got shut down pretty quick, but st
the time it sure was fun, learning how to drive a stick, learning about
traction and momentum and mass in the proper way, through direct
experience.  But that's not my point.  My point is a small saying written
on a bathroom wall, in the town of Marina, California.  Graffitti, that
blew my mind at the time because I'd never thought of it that way before
and I'd never seen anything profound written in a public restroom before.
And you've probably heard it, it's not a unique or special saying, trite
and corny, now, but at the time it seemed fresh and dynamic to me -  there
is no gravity, the earth sucks.

JC






> Best Regards
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> *From:* John Carl [mailto:ridgecoy...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, 1 April 2016 6:10 a.m.
> *To:* Nick Summerhayes
> *Cc:* John McConnell; Henry Gurr; moq_disc...@moqtalk.org; Anthony;
> Antonio Italy; Andre Broersen; skut...@online.no
>
> *Subject:* Re: What's wrong with "a personal God"?
>
>
>
> Nick/Wes,
>
> The fact that we get stuck sometimes in our categories, illustrates what I
> think of as a false problem in your question:
>
> The question is… was there a point in time (in the MOQ’s version of events
> and the SOM version of events) where the idea/concept of the Dewey Decimal
> system did not exist ??!
>
>
>
> I think I’m assuming that under SOM there was a time it didn’t exist and
> under MOQ it always existed because for something to exist under MOQ
> doesn’t necessarily require an ‘object’.
>
> Objectivity is such a false category.  To bring the issue around to the
> idea of a "personal" God, I'd like to illustrate from Ellul where the
> problem lies:
>
>
>
> "For the first two chapters of Genesis, everything has been distorted,
> beginning with the infusion of Greek philosophy toward the end of the third
> century via the theologians. The problem is that Greek philosophy asks
> questions to which the Bible does not in the least seek to reply. The
> Greeks were interested in the origin of the world, but I will seek to show
> that the first two chapters of Genesis have no interest in this subject
> whatsoever. Once theologians began to think along the lines of Greek
> philosophy, they began to interpret the first two chapters of Genesis as an
> answer to the origin of the world. In other words, they began to read these
> texts as answers to philosophical or metaphysical questions, resulting in a
> complete distortion of what these texts are all about, which has nothing to
> do with the origin of the world. Similar problems began to occur when Greek
> concepts, such as objective knowledge, were adopted. This concept is
> entirely foreign to Jewish thought. Hence, we need to take certain
> precautions. We need to know how to read a particular text. For example, it
> is impossible to read a medieval text the way we read a contemporary novel.
> They are rooted in completely different contexts."
>
> You have to admit that Ellul was on to something there.  imho, he would
> have made a fine MoQist.
>
> Don't have much time today, I'm polishing up my presentation for tomorrow
> in San Francisco.  Hopefully it will all go well and I'll video it so I can
> share it with y'll.
>
> JC
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 6:44 PM, Nick Summerhayes <n...@headway.co.nz>
> wrote:
>
> Thanks for all your efforts there, John,
>
>
>
> It’s interesting reading.
>
>
>
> I realise that using the MOQ we want to get away from the ‘concept’ of
> objects… but feel like we need to ‘bridge the gap’ if we are ever going to
> give SOM people a pathway to join us ?!
>
> I used to think that ‘objects’ would be found in the Inorganic and
> Biological levels but not the Social and Intellectual levels.
>
>
>
> But then would get into heavy chats will SOMites about an idea in the
> Intellectual level requiring ‘objects’ of some kind in the Brain to exist…
> be it a magnetized ‘memory cell’, synapse or whatever.
>
>
>
> It begat another thought experiment !...
>
> I thought of the concept or idea of the Dewey Decimal Library system in
> the Intellectual level (maybe the Social level ??) and it needing the
> Brains of people in the Western world to exist/survive and be passed down
> to generations.
>
>
>
> Say we have a perfect description of the Dewey Decimal Library system
> written down in English on paper.
>
>
>
> Then we have the asteroid hit which wipes out all races on Earth except
> the Eskimos and none of them speak English or just have rudimentary English
> (no offence to any Eskimos reading this).
>
>
>
> So there we are with no one on Earth knowing what the heck the Dewey
> Decimal system is.
>
> Eventually the Eskimos discover the document and work out what it means in
> detail… a bit like Westerners with the Egyptian hieroglyphics. Suddenly we
> have Libraries again operating the Dewey Decimal System.
>
>
>
> The question is… was there a point in time (in the MOQ’s version of events
> and the SOM version of events) where the idea/concept of the Dewey Decimal
> system did not exist ??!
>
>
>
>
>
> I think I’m assuming that under SOM there was a time it didn’t exist and
> under MOQ it always existed because for something to exist under MOQ
> doesn’t necessarily require an ‘object’.
>
> Although I could see us arguing until blue in the face with entrenched SOM
> people in the above scenario.
>
>
>
> Confused, in New Zealand.
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> a.k.a.  Wes McGuinness
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* John McConnell [mailto:jlmcconn...@bellsouth.net]
> *Sent:* Thursday, 31 March 2016 3:42 a.m.
>
>
> *To:* Nick Summerhayes
> *Cc:* 'Henry Gurr'; 'John Carl'; moq_disc...@moqtalk.org; 'Anthony';
> 'Antonio Italy'; 'Andre Broersen'; skut...@online.no
> *Subject:* RE: What's wrong with "a personal God"?
>
>
>
> Good questions there, Nick!  I’ll have a go at some answers and let Henry
> and others catch me where I fall.
>
>
>
> I would start by saying that a fact is an increment of “negotiated”
> knowledge or information.  For example, it is a [verisimilitudinous] “fact”
> that in a vacuum fall at the same rate, regardless of their masses.  The
> Newtonian equations for gravity constitute a “theory of gravity”.  The
> theory relates and interprets a number of related facts.  Newton’s theory
> of gravity worked very well for a long time and still does.  But Einstein’s
> relativistic theory of gravity works better because it relates and explains
> a wider range of facts.  Einstein’s theory gives a more verisimilitudinous
> explanation of the phenomenon of gravity than Newton’s does.  Using the
> “map” analogy, a fact is a feature of the terrain; a theory is the map that
> shows how the feature relates to the rest of the landscape.
>
>
>
> Now about the thought experiment.  I’m not clever enough to analyze it
> completely, but I have an instinct that says that somehow there’s something
> wrong with the premise.  There’s a flaw somewhere in the notion that there
> can be a totally “empty” block of space-time.  A quantum physicist would
> probably say that the uncertainty principle excludes the possibility of an
> “empty” portion of space-time.  There would be virtual particles in there
> cavorting throughout the space.  The box is a stable pattern in a
> space-time continuum, in which the “inside” is continuous and
> indistinguishable from the “outside”.  I guess I’m saying that
> “inside/outside” is an artificial distinction.  I have no idea if that is
> valid at all; it’s just what came to me “dynamically”.
>
>
>
> Space/time – “I have it on good authority” [David Bohm. Menas Kafatos]
> that space/time/matter/energy are mutually interrelated.  There isn’t a
> space-time container that matter and energy exist in or expand into.  At
> its origin the universe expanded, generating its space-time as it did so.
> [I picture a tank laying down its track and running on it and picking it up
> again.]  These authors affirm that as the universe is expanding, so is
> space-time.  Another useful image is that of a balloon being inflated.  As
> the balloon expands, two spots on its surface become more distant from each
> other.  But the spots are not separating from each other in a pre-existing
> container of a fixed size; they are separating as space-time expands.
>
>
>
> Does any of this make sense?
>
>
>
> Good luck!
>
>
>
>
>
> John McConnell
>
> Home:  407-857-2004
>
> Cell:      407-867-2192
>
> Email:   jlmcconn...@bellsouth.net
>
>
>
> *From:* Nick Summerhayes [mailto:n...@headway.co.nz <n...@headway.co.nz>]
> *Sent:* Monday, March 28, 2016 6:45 PM
> *To:* John McConnell
> *Cc:* 'Henry Gurr'; 'John Carl'; moq_disc...@moqtalk.org; 'Anthony';
> 'Antonio Italy'; 'Andre Broersen'; skut...@online.no
> *Subject:* RE: What's wrong with "a personal God"?
>
>
>
> Thanks John,
>
>
>
> When posting on blogs I like to ask what becomes of the previous ‘fact’.
> Possibly a bad example (of so called facts), but is Einstein’s ‘gravity’
> (relativity and the warping of space/time) a fact and Newton’s gravity not ?
>
> I guess it comes down to Pirsig/Anthony’s “use the ‘best’ (map) one, e.g.
> Einstein’s gravity for Mercury’s transit around the Sun.
>
>
>
> Talking Space/Time, I also try a thought experiment whereby we remove all
> ‘objects’ from a cubic metre of Space/Time… e.g. a lead-lined box to keep
> out radiation and neutrinos, then suck out all matter with a vacuum, and
> have the box coated with a substance that deflects radio waves.
>
>
>
> What is in the box ?  Dark Matter ?  Or absolutely nothing ?   Just DQ ??
>
>
>
> Also, are ‘we’ generating more Space/Time for the Universe(s) to expand
> into or is it a finite resource ?
>
>
>
> Kind Regards
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> *From:* John McConnell [mailto:jlmcconn...@bellsouth.net
> <jlmcconn...@bellsouth.net>]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 29 March 2016 4:57 a.m.
> *To:* Nick Summerhayes
> *Cc:* 'Henry Gurr'; 'John Carl'; moq_disc...@moqtalk.org; 'Anthony';
> 'Antonio Italy'; 'Andre Broersen'; skut...@online.no
> *Subject:* RE: What's wrong with "a personal God"?
>
>
>
> Nick,
>
> I think the best of scientists will tell you that there is no such thing
> as a “raw fact”.  There are *data* (from Latin for “given”), some of
> which may be passively obtained, but “facts”  are *factus* (from the
> Latin for “made”).  Facts are not “observed”; they are “negotiated”.  Any
> “scientific fact” exists only in the terms of, and by virtue of, the
> theoretical context and the empirical process of that negotiation.
> [Henry?  Confirm?  Deny?  Correct?]
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> John McConnell
>
> Home:  407-857-2004
>
> Cell:      407-867-2192
>
> Email:   jlmcconn...@bellsouth.net
>
>
>
> *From:* Nick Summerhayes [mailto:n...@headway.co.nz <n...@headway.co.nz>]
> *Sent:* Monday, March 28, 2016 3:29 AM
> *To:* John McConnell
> *Cc:* Henry Gurr; John Carl; moq_disc...@moqtalk.org; Anthony; Antonio
> Italy; Andre Broersen; skut...@online.no
> *Subject:* Re: What's wrong with "a personal God"?
>
>
>
> I've wondered about the term 'scientific fact'. Should it be 'current
> scientific fact'. For Science to work shouldn't the most recent fact be
> prepared to be replaced at a moments notice ?!
>
>
>
> Should we make the term scientific fact redundant ?
>
>
> On 28/03/2016, at 5:04 pm, John McConnell <jlmcconn...@bellsouth.net>
> wrote:
>
> Henry,
>
> Your last sentence says it all:
>
> “To me, outside what these persons tell us, there is no way to know if
> any of this is "true", *or scientifically provable.”*
>
>
>
> Your positing of “scientifically provable” as the criterion of truth makes
> me feel that you and I have little common ground for dialogue.  Most of
> what really means anything to me in my life is beyond the scope of that
> which is “scientifically provable”.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
>
> John McConnell
>
> Home:  407-857-2004
>
> Cell:      407-867-2192
>
> Email:   jlmcconn...@bellsouth.net
>
>
>
> *From:* Henry Gurr [mailto:henrysg...@gmail.com <henrysg...@gmail.com>]
> *Sent:* Sunday, March 27, 2016 7:54 PM
> *To:* Nick Summerhayes
> *Cc:* John Carl; John McConnell; moq_disc...@moqtalk.org; Anthony;
> Antonio Italy; Andre Broersen; skut...@online.no
> *Subject:* Re: What's wrong with "a personal God"?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> To Nick, John M, John Carl, Andre, Antonio, Anthony & MOQ Discuss.
>
>
>
>
>
> John Carl said " ... but on the other hand, without an account of the
> personal, all science;  all modern education, flounders in such abyssi as
> "mind/body" and "Self/Other" logical problems."
>
>
>
> Concerning this, I can see how some "thinkers", could start with trying to
> make an account of  the personal, and get totally lost in "mind/body" and
> "Self/Other" logical problems."
>
>
>
> Partly because they don't have or understand band have heads full of evil
> dualisms!! .
>
> ********
>
>
>
> According to Owen Barfield, there has been an evolution of consciousness,
> which starts of NO awareness of self (time of  *Homer's Odyssey* & *Greek*
>  mythology, to our present day self awareness, which we have because we
> have what we call consciousness.
>
>
>
> Of course, what we call a person, including what we call our self, must
> have a corresponding evolution:
>
>
>
> So I agree with ", *Personality is a story - a process [of development]
> in time.*" This story is probably  written out, by a wide collection of
> various authors. However such stories will be VERY lacking unless they
> include the orientation of  both of Pirsig's books, which I'll bet hasn't
> happened.
>
>
>
> But some authors might have done this: So challenge: Please tell all of
> us, the best "story", you are aware of.
>
>
>
> Both of Pirsig's books, might be a good way to make a *basis* for  many
> persons' " notion of a
>
>    “Personal God” +
>
>     Why can’t God choose to be “personal”?  +
>
>     What is the affirmation of a “personal God” +
>
>     How can there be a “limitation” or “definition” of God?
>
>
>
> To me, outside what these persons tell us, there is no way to know if any
> of this is "true", or scientifically provable.
>
>
>
> Henry Gurr
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 5:18 PM, Nick Summerhayes <n...@headway.co.nz>
> wrote:
>
> Hello All,
>
>
>
> Are we living in a time of ‘imPersonalism’ ?!
>
>
>
> I did identify with ‘The person is rooted in history but the now is
> always a choice. ‘
>
>
>
> Kind Regards
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> *From:* John Carl [mailto:ridgecoy...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, 24 March 2016 6:53 a.m.
> *To:* John McConnell; moq_disc...@moqtalk.org
> *Cc:* Anthony; Henry Gurr; Antonio Italy; Andre Broersen;
> skut...@online.no; Nick Summerhayes
> *Subject:* Re: What's wrong with "a personal God"?
>
>
>
> John, I brought up the issue of Personalism a while back in MD, and
> honestly, before we get into what you mean by "God", I think we ought to
> talk about what we mean by "Personal".  I got interested in the discussion
> of Personalism in the general  way through reading Auxier's commentary on
> James's Personalism, which he (James) largely derived from Bowden Parker
> Bowne, if Auxier's correct (and he usually is ;)   It's a fascinating
> philosophical discussion and one that modernist-analytic philosophy (SOM)
> tends to ignore, being that it is a form of Idealism and god knows who we
> let in if we open THAT door....
>
> but on the other hand, without an account of the personal, all science;
> all modern education, flounders in such abyssi as "mind/body" and
> "Self/Other" logical problems.
>
>
> before  we can personalize God, God must personalize us, or we have no
> basis for standing.  I believe this can be a rational process, but it MUST
> be a process.  That is, Personality is a story - a process in time.  The
> god of the bible is certainly that, first and foremost - IAM he that knew
> your fathers, that brought you out of the land of bondage, etc.  The person
> is rooted in history but the now is always a choice.
>
> Thanks for continuing the conversation,
>
> John
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 12:16 PM, John McConnell <
> jlmcconn...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> Friends,
>
> In a number of sources which otherwise affirm a spiritual reality or a
> concept analogous to the way Christians conceive of God, most are vehement
> in their denial a “personal God”, which most equate with an
> “anthropomorphic” or “sectarian” God.  Although such may often be the case,
> why, on the face of it, do scholars reject the notion of a “personal God”?
> Why can’t God choose to be “personal”?  Why is the affirmation of a
> “personal God” considered by MOQ fundamentalists to be a “limitation” or
> “definition” of God?  How does being “personal” (not “personified”) violate
> God’s the attributes of ineffable, indefinable, etc., ascribed to Dynamic
> Quality?  What could be less “effable” and “definable” and “limited” than
> the pure Essence of Being of Thomas Aquinas?  I’m really puzzled by this.
> Can you help?
>
> Many thanks,
>
>
>
> John McConnell
>
> Home:  407-857-2004
>
> Cell:      407-867-2192
>
> Email:   jlmcconn...@bellsouth.net
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> "finite players
> play within boundaries.
>
> Infinite players
> play *with* boundaries."
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> "finite players
> play within boundaries.
>
> Infinite players
> play *with* boundaries."
>



-- 
"finite players
play within boundaries.
Infinite players
play *with* boundaries."
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org/md/archives.html

Reply via email to