Hi Ham,
Finally, I get some time to reply to some posts on MD. I have been on and off for some time on the list; although I scan the headings and dive where I am compelled. Its just that following and engaging every thread is rather time consuming; although every viewpoint is important - and I try to keep up. Essentially, I don't think I fit any categorisation; I have had spent some time managing trade associations (aggregations of businesses), a minor journalist at one time, and dibble dabble in various startups at other times. I feel I span and at the same time find myself caught in the narrow ledge between playing zero-sum business games and visualising blue ocean cutting edge strategies, getting nicked in knife fights over corporate turf although I am hardly competitive in the tactical sense. I have tried to bridge intellect and business, clearly contradictory propositions and to reconcile not for profit motivations with the entrepreneurial prowess of wealth generating mechanisms It is still more an attempt to be there though rather than having arrived. But it is here where the tension between the social and the intellectual resides. Business is essentially social/biological and its a 'dawg eat dawg' world out there. You have to admire the pure instinct of greed and rawness of those willing to cut and dice to get what they want: sharks are sharks being the elegant predatory machines they are. Not much different I guess from most of humanity trying to go on with the business of living and having little time to reflect on it. Right now I have arrived at the point where I develop biofuel projects mainly in South East Asia and this leaves me little time for navel gazing and chart out the big picture philosophical stuff which I really like to do. But pertinent to this list, I am not from academia, and my forays into philosophy, religion and even "eastern" oriental topics were picked up along the way of reading writers at the fringe of science and of being immersed in the multicultural context of South East Asia having lived here all my life and for a brief spell under the nurturing guidance of Buddhist monks. So you won't find any great rigidity in my analysis; but I like complicated concepts whittled down to simple plain talk every one can understand. But I am really flattered to when you say this list is in need of my "insight". "Insight" is not the product of great intellect or thought; nor a great deal of effort and work on a certain subject. *I believe its what comes naturally when you let go or find yourself prepared to let go your conditioned relflexes, the stimulation of the **anterior superior temporal gyrus notwithstanding.* One of the big problems about 'insight' is its communication to others who may not share the same experience of that very 'insight'. Explaining 'insight' diminishes it - one cannot really frame the words to reflect its full force and weight; especially to another who may not have experienced the same 'insight'. So my reversion to "poetic vision" rather than the replicability of the "scientific method" - again reflecting the emerging recent dichotomy on this list; of the classicalists versus the romanticists. One final point: just as the Enlightenment of Buddhism is not for everyone not yet ready in their present life; I did not expect, nor I suspect Pirsig did, everyone to fully come to terms with what the Metaphysics of Quality is all about. At best a metaphor; at worst a scaffold for the ultimate insight. A roadmap perhaps to the mountain top for ready inquiring minds. But as a quantum leap into a new philosophical inquiry but based on the western tradition of the scientific method; it depends, I suppose, on how much one is prepared to let go of some, if not all, of its fundamental premises. There you have it. I hope that helps. Best Regards, Khoo Hock Aun On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 11:40 PM, Ham Priday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Greetings, Khoo Hock -- > > > This is an outstanding essay on time perception and its relation to > experiential (cause-and-effect) reality. > > I sincerely hope you're going to be a "regular" here, as the MoQers are > badly in need of your insight. Can you tell us something about your > background and experience? > > Needless to say, I look forward to reading your future postings. > > Essentially yours, > Ham > > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > - - - > > > > Dear all, >> >> I would like to reply to at least two threads this weekend, when I get >> past >> some meetings tomorrow and some work laid out for me. >> >> But before then I want to catch this thought before it flies away. >> >> Take Time. Time is percieved as linear because we have clocks constructed >> to >> measure it. We have it around us everyday, embedded in our computers, our >> phones, every manmade device around us. >> >> Yet it is the approximation of changes that we observe around us when we >> look at the world in an empirical sense. The seasons change, the day >> transforms into night, the world around us manifests changes every moment, >> every second and we try to capture the change through our invention of >> time. >> >> Since we think we percieve change as linear, as a chain of cause and >> effect, >> particularly when in isolation, we think therefore that time is linear. >> But >> it is a construct of time that we have invented ourselves, manmade so that >> we think through this device, we can control the environment aorund us. >> >> The reality is that Time is an artificial manmade pattern that is a result >> of our empiricism; our objective worldview; where we as the subject view >> the >> world around us as the object. >> The reality is that cause and effect is only linear when viewed in >> isolation, when we have taken a laboratory experiment and suspended all >> other causes and effects, save the one we choose to observe. The reality >> is >> that cause and effect, and "Time" itself spreads out as would a ripple >> affecting everything in its path, every molecule in its lattice at the >> same >> time. >> >> In reality, time is only linear but multilinear and omnilinear and >> happening >> all at once and everywhere. When we have mastered what time really is, we >> have then mastered the universe. Which then opens up what others regard as >> mysticism. >> >> Subject Object Metaphysics has its roots in this framework of linear time. >> The Reality, the Metaphysics of Quality if you like, that lies outside >> this >> worldview shows us an interlocked and interrelated uinverse where we are >> all >> connected and all the same at the same time. And the secret to the time >> machine; or a machine that transcends Time. >> >> The idea of an individual has no meaning or sense in such a world view. >> >> Khoo Hock Aun >> > > 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/ > -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] 6016-301 4079 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/
