aesthetics is properly the quality of experience. hence northrop's 'undifferentiated aesthetic continuum'.
--- Akshay Peshwe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The scientific method, stated in bare-bones fashion, > is not at fault. It is > the application of it that renders studies like > classical physics incomplete > in its definition of reality. > > Let me point out a simple error of application of > the scientific method. At > the core of the SM is Logic, with its foundation > laid in computer science > (axiomatic set theory et al). However, one of the > biggest assumptions of > science is that of the existence of an external > world; in other words, the > absolute truth of what is the waking state of mind. > As Gav pointed out in a > most fitting way, quantum physics has arrived at a > stage where the > fundamental assumptions of science are being > subjected to scrutiny -- by > science itself (as opposed to by philosophy, as was > custom for hundreds of > years). > > The Vedantic answer, modified to the MoQ's > requirements, would be that > Dynamic Quality is the absolute reality and > everything else is relative. > Now, exactly as to how true the normal world is is a > debate that is related > to one's attachment to the world. Hence, a complete > renunciate (sannyasi) > would say that DQ alone is reality and all else (SQ) > is illusion, whereas a > householder (grihastha) would say that SQ is real > although only relatively > so, thereby not denying SQ completely and > maintaining his role in it by > minimum attachment. > > I don't quite agree when Pirsig implicitly calls DQ > an aesthetic experience > (in ZAMM there is a division between the aesthetic > and logical parts of the > mind). What has aesthetics to do with it? Aesthetics > is purely an > intellectual pattern that links to biological > patterns of pleasure and pain > and social patterns of desire and aversion. > > Akshay > > On 26/11/2007, gav <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > the problem is not the scientific method. > > the problem is in the interpretation. > > whilst science operates under the inadequate aegis > of > > SOM it will have difficulty understanding the > whole > > picture: because it presumes the existence of an > > objective reality separate to the observer. > > quantum physics made this inadequacy glaringly > obvious > > - it still does. how do we interpret quantum > reality > > under SOM? - answer: we can't. > > > > a new context is required and that context is > > emerging. new context = new myth. > > > > the new myth recognises the unity and sentience of > > earth itself - gaia....and by extrapolation the > entire > > cosmos. > > > > as einstein said: the assumption that we are > separate > > is just an optical illusion of consciousness. > quantum > > physics literally shows us the intimate > > interconnection of all space. space and time order > > reality; they are not reality itself. > > > > with an MOQ perspective we can make sense of > > everything because we factor in the primacy of > > undivided experience - pre-intellectual, > aesthetic. > > and this is absolute not relative knowledge. it is > > knowledge by communion, by immersion, by > identifying > > with the world, by losing yourself in the world. > > > > > > > > --- MarshaV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Greetings, > > > > > > It seems that the problems with the scientific > > > method have been > > > recognized. Yet it has been anointed the best > > > method for recognizing > > > truth (provisional). If the scientific method > is > > > such a highly > > > valued, but very static, intellectual pattern, > how > > > will a better > > > method (pattern) get recognized? Maybe there's > one > > > emerging, but > > > what would be the probability of me recognizing > it? > > > Everything seems > > > a trap! > > > > > > Chop wood, carry water and paint? > > > > > > Marsha > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > > > > > > > > > > > Make the switch to the world's best email. > Get the new Yahoo!7 Mail > > now. www.yahoo7.com.au/worldsbestemail > > > > > > 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > > > 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > Make the switch to the world's best email. Get the new Yahoo!7 Mail now. www.yahoo7.com.au/worldsbestemail 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
