At 02:22 PM 9/17/2008, you wrote:
[Marsha]:
What does "a fascinating demonstration of dimensional
relativism that showed the limitations of human perspective."
mean??? Are you somehow explaining to us a perspective that is
outside "the limitations of human
> perspective"?????????
[Magnus]:
I stopped to think once or twice about that too. Personally, I
think it's just his fancy way of saying that
he was surprised to know how small an atom is, and how small the
atom's nucleus is.
I guess I should have been clearer in explaining my reaction to 'Moonwalk'.
The overall thrust of this production was to relate the quantum and
macro universes to man's (normal) view of reality -- in other words,
to demonstrate the "flexibility of perspective". By projecting
these realms as a variable, and visually shifting the locus of
awareness back and forth, we understand that our experience of the
world lies midway between the bundles of energy that make up the
atoms and the galactic bodies that comprise the Milky Way.
Greetings Ham,
I suggest you watch the movie 'Mindwalk' again, specifically
listening to the information presented by the physicist. She talks
about everything being connected to everything, and the need for a
NEW world-view.
I think the visual technology, together with the physicist's
commentary, is both mind-gripping and intellectually
enlightening. The video would be ideal as a classroom tool,
particularly for science teachers. My only complaint, from a
philosophical perspective, is that the viewer comes away with an
energy-based concept of reality. While this is of course the
objectivist viewpoint of Science, a philosopher might have
documented it differently.
Appreciate your continuing interest in "Ham's views", and hope that
the above explanation is more comprehensible.
At 06:09 PM 9/16/2008, you wrote:
"But it is unreasonable by Occam's razor, or any other logical
principle, to assume that ultimate reality, the primary source itself
(what I call Essence), is multiplistic and subject to a beginning, an
end, or the fluctuations between. Religion, mysticism, and
philosophy have all posited a unitary, immutable Creator as the
eternal source. And I do not have the temerity to challenge that
concept, even if Mr. Pirsig doesn't acknowledge a creator and happens
to think DQ is something that "hits" him."
It sounds like you are accusing RMP of temerity for not acknowledging
a "creator". I accused you of arrogance for thinking you can define
and confine things outside your ability to know. The 'primary
source' 'creator', and 'purpose' that you insist upon are a mere
conception in the minds of you and others like you.
I hope a second viewing of Mindwalk will open your mind to new possibilities.
Marsha
.
.
Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars.........
.
.
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/
