At 03:46 PM 9/19/2008, you wrote:
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.
Hello Magnus,
I would imagine the conceptual pattern of fish
(opposite-from-non-fish), scales, vegetables, have long ago taken
control of the experience of such things. A fish cannot be separated
from water without major alterations separating it from interconnect
processes. Or the fact that nature knows nothing about "fish". It a
name directly given to our conceptualization. The system we use to
measure weight is man-made, the idea of weight itself is man-made,
etc., etc., etc. I cannot see where there would be much direct
experience in that transaction at all. We conceptualize. That's
what we do. There is the experience of analog on analog on analog.
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.
Are you saying gravity is a tactile experience? Can I touch, see,
smell, hear or taste gravity? No? It must not be phenomenal
entity. I can think it. It must be a conceptional entity.
See, this is where it gets sticky.
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/
