Thanks, Marsha, Heather, Ron, and anyone I've missed. Marsha, yes, I finished Lila a month-or-so ago, but have been so busy that I have had to put most of my metaphysical reflections on the shelf.
It is probably the most important book I have read, for the MOQ's elegance, apparent range and relevance to our societies. I've been reflecting on it almost daily, poking around for places where a cleaving or unity might be made using a MOQ as I understand it. I am seriously considering working on a philosophy degree after I take my science qualifications, with a focus on the MOQ or a similar system. I may have found, in some of my physics reading, what could be a valuable tool for freeing oneself from subject-object bias in language, which might be useful training. There is a set of exercises that physicist David Bohm devised to unlearn the inbuilt subject-object strictures of our language, allowing a more accurate treatment of quantum mechanics. I plan to map out my understanding of the MOQ, and test it for flaws. The problems with subject-object metaphysics have bothered me since childhood, and they become of material importance when one works with modern physics. Gotta go -- so much to do. Chris Ron: Bohms work is instrumental in our endeavors here on the forum, his methods can be contrasted and compared to eastern methods to achieve the same result. looking forward to the conclusions of your testing. 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/
