Hi Heather
> SA: Magnus, I've put it simply for some here, but any
> discussion is shrugged away at times. I'm glad to see
> your bringing this back. Wouldn't you agree that
> static quality can be categorized into 4 levels? One
> level is intellectual, another social, biological, and
> fourthly inorganic.
Agree.
> Sure if we take the assumption
> that reality is human based, which also seems to be
> happening at times, then reality will only be in
> somebodies mind. One can think that way, and people
> are not going to change their minds if they don't want
> to, but that's not what I'm out for. A rock is a
> rock, and its' not in my skull. That's my view.
Yes, if we assume that reality is human based, it will of course
only be in someone's mind. But I also hope that anyone (on this
list) who make that assumption, also realizes that the MoQ is
then left behind.
I assume that everyone here is trying to discuss the MoQ, and
by doing that, learn more about it. That's why I'm here. So
I'm afraid I get a little impatient at times when people make
statements that I feel is far from the MoQ.
> SA: Ron, I don't think how one interprets a rock can
> be argued against. Sure many cultures exist, that's a
> given. Yet, once I figure out the word or identity of
> any culture's analogy of a rock, I can ask them to
> bring me their Aunt Seal and they'll bring me what we
> call a sandstone, or maybe they call it a sandstone,
> too - but their not going to chop a tree down and give
> it to me.
Not sure about that. If you say "rock" to an astronomer,
a 200 m asteroid may come to mind, but if you say it to
the astronomer's 5 year old child, it's probably fist-sized.
>
> Magnus:
>> When our solar system was young, there
>> were nobody there to call anything by name. But the
>> rocks, stones and dust
>> particles went about their business anyway. Obeying
>> the rules of level 1 and
>> forming the sun and planets we take for granted
>> today.
>
> SA: Very good Magnus, you know your basic astronomy.
> Now some may point out that their creation story
> doesn't involve this early solar system, that's fine
> and dandy. Others may point out that they were not
> alive during the early solar system, and therefore it
> didn't exist - and this is the human centered view of
> the universe that I referred to above - and to some
> the universe is a highly ego-centered view that only
> they themselves, as a specific human being will admit
> to knowing if they only experienced it, thus, not
> trusting other human views, evidence, or cultural
> understandings, whichever way you want to call it.
> Many cultures do exist, and we can't forget this
> culture's view, specifically the one that involves
> astronomy. Once in that worldview, it is to be
> understood according to that culture's understanding.
> It's putting the mask on of whichever culture you are
> trying to know about, learn those cultural ways, and
> then you'll be able to discuss how that particular
> culture understands their point of view. In the
> culture of scientific astronomy, rocks did exist in
> the early solar system, billions of years before any
> humankind took a step on earth. Depending on how
> early one desires to view the solar system, the earth
> may not exist yet either.
Yes I understand, and I accept that people have different
ways to look at things. But I still think the default way
here should be the MoQ, and if another view is described,
one should also state which one, and realize that it is not
the MoQ.
I think we had a consensus about this, but it was quite a long
time ago.
Magnus
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/
