Dear Elephant,
I am still considering the many thought-provoking comments from your post of
April 10th, and reassessing my views, as a result. Your absence from the
Group during your abbreviated sabbatical will be sorely felt. Wishing you
the best during your time away.
The Bard
----- Original Message -----
From: elephant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2001 9:29 AM
Subject: Re: MD Atomic awareness
> Dear all.
>
> Just to make this clear: Simone Weil died about 60 years ago - the bits of
> her work that I quoted are from a book called "Gravity and Grace", and
> collected in a anthology called "Simone Weil, an Anthology".
>
> It would be nice to have her on the discussion lists in a more embodied
way
> - but sadly this isn't possible.
>
> I'm unsubscribing from the list now for a week or two as I can't master
> lurking and I have alot of reading to catch up on. No disrespect intended
> because I've been having an interesting time here, and won't be too long
> away. This is without doubt the best of the free philosophical discussion
> groups on the net and moq.org should be proud, and thanked too, from time
to
> time. I'll be back shortly and I will still want to carry on the
discussion
> about atomic awareness - unless you all reach a consensus in my abscence -
> of which I will want to be told!
>
> all the best
>
> Elephant
>
> > From: "Jeremy Guy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 08:42:14 +0100
> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: Re: MD Atomic awareness
> >
> >
> > ----- 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
> >
> >
>
>
>
> 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
