----- Original Message -----
From: "Ham Priday" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, June 14, 2008 12:36 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Chance
Marsha --
Ham,
Aren't you talking about space, which is where appearances do not exist.
I don't see it this way. Appearances are experienced dimensionally
(because of man's space/time mode of awareness), and we call the whole
procress "existence". That events are experienced in sequence and
distributed in space is a function of organic sensibility. We
intellectualize this perspective as the knowledge of our reality. But
even the physicists have determined that the critical density (mass) of
interstellar space equates to less than one hydrogen atom per cubic meter,
which means that physical existence is almost entirely a void -- empty
space, nothingness.
Objectivists have concluded that the "stuff" of reality is bundles of
energy spread out into infinite space. Most here share that conclusion,
because they can't accept the view that they live in a "virtual reality".
They don't understand that all experience is interpreted Value,
specifically the value of Essence from which we are all negated. Nor do
they understand that the "universality" of knowledge manifests our
individuated relationship to the primary source. Indeed, the reality that
we call "existence" is about as far from ultimate reality as finite
experience can ever be.
I still cringe when I hear people boast that "they live in the REAL world"
as opposed, of course, to those of us who hold out for a more substantive
reality. What about you, Marsha?
Best regards,
Ham
Greetings Ham,
I'm not sure the phrase "virtual reality" means the exact same thing to both
of us, but it sounds right. And "that all experience is interpreted Value"
also sounds right to me. A constant flow of interpreted value. But "of
Essence from which we are all negated." seems superfluous. A few weeks
back, someone wrote that something was as "real as rocks and rain" and I
did cringe. But rocks and rain are conventionally there, and I don't
have my understanding locked into a neat and tidy intellectual
package, so I let it go. I am beginning to see something out of the corner
of my eye. But still when I turn my head for a closer look, it's gone. I
know it on some level, but not visually or intellectually at this point.
I'm not sure what to say about space and time. If they are empty, it
doesn't matter any more. That space and time manifest with patterns seems
very probable. That they are also pattern is likely. I've had enough very
strange experiences with both to distrust what is commonly thought of them.
They are not discrete.
If you could just drop the "primary source" and talk about relationship to
Quality, we might agree more. But maybe not. I really don't know what
you're getting at with your need for purpose. Does a river need a purpose?
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/
