Hi SA Thanks for your noble attempt to explain some of the differences of perspective/understanding here.
David M Value > according to the moq is subjectivity, objectivity, > perhaps, nothing, both, and a number of different ways > of slicing or not-slicing reality. Thus, why I think > your definition of value is different from my > definition of value. This is why it is not science, > but the way science is understood. SOM society thinks > science is the truth of reality, and their definition > of how science arrives at the truth of reality is for > people with an SOM mindset to look 'out there' and to > find truth in what can be observed in a telescope or > microscope only. Meanwhile, we understand reality > involves imagination and opinions that are not readily > observed. If one thinks reality is only about what's > 'out-there', then these people are missing out on what > is not readily observed, for instance, how one feels > or what one might be thinking. These types of > experiences persist, and a data in the telescope type > reality is here, but not everything. Sure, science > may understand everything I mentioned, but the > population at large is focused upon 'what is seen is > truth'. Do you see how your definition of value seems > to be different from how I define value? Value to me > is science - physics science, and value is art. Value > involves all of these, though, the definition of the > value partaking in these differing events (physics, > art, etc...) will be a value involving different > definitions. The definition of what happens in > physics will be a value process defined much > differently than the value process in art, for > instance. > > > SA: I see what your saying. To say science is > valueless is to skew what is meant by value. What > might be a better way to discuss this, is not that > science refutes value, but how certain people define > what science does and what place certain people give > to science. When people give science the role as the > all-truth giver and the only path to defining what > reality is, then these certain people have placed > limits not on science, but on what THEY-THINK science > is, which one could consequently state they have thus > placed limits on what science is. > > > Is this more helpful? > Questions, comments? > 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/
