----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 2:21 AM
Subject: Re: MD Atomic awareness
Hi ROG, Platt, Elephant and all,
IMO atoms are not aware. Yes, I finally got it. I'm sorry to say the
contents of the recent discussions as such didn't do it, however the
impasse concerning agreement on what I considered a fundamental issue to my
own understanding made me at least open my mind to the possibility that I
was wrong. And whoa, what a shock!
So what did it? I decided to do some cross referencing of ideas in the
Lila's Child archive. Just looking for anything that seemed to be of
relevance. I came across Pirsig on Time. Time having been much food for
thought in the past. I suddenly realised just how weird our belief in the
SOM way of looking at time is. Here is 'something' which has no
discreteness, no physical body and yet we believe in its existence, as some
kind of entity with out doubt. It's very, very odd.
Then things started falling into place. How I've still been trying to look
through the SOM glasses and getting nowhere. The way we look at time with
our SOM specs on is just the same way we should look at everything with the
MOQ specs on. The mind matter relationship creates the illusion of
awareness. In the MOQ window DQ creates the initial illusion of awareness
because it cannot look back on itself. I think I've put that correctly?
Time is a static pattern of intellectual values, and atoms are inorganic
patterns of values that most of the time we cannot help but look at through
SOM glasses. Quality creates atoms thus atoms cannot 'have' awareness. What
about the Life question? just the same but I think that this realisation has
to be come to by the individual. Its too precious a view to be lightly
changed by words.
That's was the problem, the distrust we have in our intellectual constructs,
(and quite rightly so given it's history) and the convoluted language we use
to describe them. But the questions don't go away for the artist,
philosopher etc. We cannot ignore them as others do and carry on with the
distrust of, in effect our own mind.
The other thing that swayed me was the practical usage comparison between
Newtonian physics v Einstein's Relativity and SOM v MOQ philosophy. Ones
fine for everyday local use, but if you want to go further you have to
answer some pretty big questions for more accuracy. Niether is incorrect
just one is more correct than the other.
I would like to thank Simone Wiel for her enlightening talk about the
Personal and Impersonal, it makes perfect sense.
I have to attend to business for a few weeks but I'll pick up the mail,
thanks to everyone for thier help so far.
Jeremy
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
