Hi again Marsha
But in that case, yes, I agree that in the MoQ, there are no
things-in-themselves, i.e. a thing does not exist independently of
other things, only in relationships with other things.
But isn't it like the moment you interact with phenomenon, like
conceptualize this phenomenon, it is no longer the phenomenon, but the
static, conceptualized-version, with it's relationships severed, it
processes altered. It seems to me it would be as the difference between
dead and alive.
The conceptualized version of a phenomenon is, in my view, an intellectual
pattern representing the original phenomenon. And yes, the intellectual
representation is very different from the original, it's so different that it
refuses any attempts of comparison. Very much dead, I agree.
For example, I'm really looking forward to eating that last piece of blueberry
pie my fiancee made a few days ago. I remember how yesterday's piece tasted but
that memory only serves to increase my longing. The only thing I can really do
is to eat that last piece, and while I'm eating, the phenomenon is very much
alive. As I'm eating, I don't want to think about anything else, don't want to
watch TV because that would only distract me from the biological gooood
experience. But afterwards, it will again be just a dead memory. A
conceptualized, intellectualized, dead, static pattern.
I doubt that science ever gets to direct experience of
phenomenon without conceptualization. And this is where science gets
defensive and wants to walk away from such a point-of-view. It's a
total lack of humility. (Such nerve I have!!!) But we both know there
are lots of examples where new theories were ignored because there was
so much already invested in the old.
I'm not sure it *never* gets to direct experience. Take for example an old
fashioned scale used to weigh fish and vegetables on the market place. To use
such a scale, you put what you want to weigh on one side, and then put the
counter weights on the other until the sides are balanced. Perhaps not very
high-tech science, but as the scale does its job, it is experiencing inorganic
value first hand. It's when we are done and say that the fish weighed 0.5kg that
we have conceptualized (and killed) the experience.
But you're probably right most of the time. That's how science has come to work.
A theory is first formulated, and to test it, one must do the observation and
conceptualize it to verify it against the theory.
Yes, I agree a pattern only exists in relationship with other patterns
of the same level. Maybe interacting with patterns on other levels too.
Yes, patterns are able to interact with patterns of other levels too, but only
via the inter-level dependency.
And it doesn't mean that the idea of one independent, falling piano
is the best point-of-view either.
No! Wow, that sparked some ideas. Thanks for rattling my cage. :)
I think you're making fun of me. I know only enough to be dangerous,
but I think you got my idea.
No Marsha! I was *not* making fun of you. That was a very serious and honest
thanks for putting your finger on something that I took for granted, but at a
closer look wasn't that obvious.
Usually when we want to show what a dynamic experience is, we use biological
tastes, or smells, or perhaps a beautiful scenery passing by when you're out
jogging. Afterwards, these dynamic experiences are conceptualized and converted
into dead intellectual static patterns. But intellectual experiences can be
dynamic too. And that is what you gave me with that comment about the piano.
So, again. Thanks!
Now here's where I get downright weird. I do not believe gravity, or a
"law of gravity" exists. There's no phenomenon there, it all
conceptual. Intellectual patterns that are useful. Have I sent you
fleeing?
Huh? No phenomenon? Perhaps you would change your mind if you tried zero-G? Not
that I have, but that way, you could first hand compare gravity vs. no gravity.
Just an idea.
We are now strangling in the narrow view.
I have a feeling I didn't get the full meaning of that. Would you mind
elaborating?
It seems to me the intellectual level is being choked by materialism and
greed.
Hmm, yes, let's just hope the intellectual level gets the upper hand eventually.
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/
