Adrie, I've read some of David Bohm's works. I've watch him on YouTube also. He was an interesting man, and I'm sure many of his ideas are equally interesting. I haven't gotten to the portion of the book that references David Bohm, but when I do I will read it with great care since you've mentioned him. I will also consider that your criticism is built on an unread diagonal impression.
So you're an impressionist? Marsha On Sep 26, 2010, at 6:26 AM, ADRIE KINTZIGER wrote: > Marsha, , no , i did not read it , but took a diagonal very fast reading > impression,and i do not think the book has a right of existence. > > Strangely enough, i find it very encouraging that you are making attempts to > develop yourself and evolute. > My comment on the book is not to dis-encourage you.The book is a > monstruosity, cheap infotainment probably funded > by the American creationist-lobby. > > If you want to read something that is understandable, really good, and still > valuable,; > "wholeness and the implicate order", David Bohm, this is still today on > the bookshelf of every modern scientist. > but it is written to be read by normal people.It is of stunning quality. > > Bohm does not create enigma's , he solves them.thats what experiments and > scientists do, and thats what James and Pirsig are doeiing. > > greetzz. > Adrie > > 2010/9/26 MarshaV <[email protected]> > >> >> Adrie, >> >> The book is merely presenting the philosophical enigmas which >> science so often chooses to ignore, preferring to get with the >> experiments. >> >> Have you read the book? >> >> >> Marsha >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sep 26, 2010, at 5:30 AM, ADRIE KINTZIGER wrote: >> >>> Personally i think, Ham, that "causation by preference" is David Bohm's >>> work, and that Pirsig was enormously inspired by Bohm. >>> >>> Interpreting Bohm's impressions on preferential states is not theft >> but >>> science. It is you Ham, declaring that Pirsig's theory of causuation >> by >>> preference,...etc, is Pirsig's and wrong. But i think Pirsig is >> correct >>> , >>> and Bohm is correct , the falsification to declare it as this >> projection >>> you made, is a Hammification. ... >>> >>> Further comment Adrie >>> Observation creates reality (as we observe it), but the observer is >> not >>> reality (as the observer is part of reality). >>> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> Merely as an attachment to some issue's raised by Marsha,in the >>> interpretation >>> of one of the books she is mentioning, i gave a physikal >> interpretation >>> of >>> observations on reality(physikal) that is more accurate and more >> correct >>> than >>> the misconception about the role of the observer towards the >> recognition >>> about >>> reality. >>> Reality itself is not a simplification of the concept of >>> reality,simplifications >>> introduced by reading a book , that is clearly written to deny quantum >>> physiks >>> and it achievements. >>> The book is a lie from the first sentence's, some of the projected >>> truth's >>> date back to the first days that Einstein, Heisenberg, Bohr were >>> debating the >>> possibilities/non possibilities of the emerging quantum physiks. >>> Mostly the positions they took then, are left now as relicts from the >>> past , >>> endemic remnants of unhandy attempts made by E, H, B, to formulate >> what >>> was new. >>> The book sets of on these parameters , 50 years old , and forgotten >> for >>> a reason. >>> Reality, Physikal reality, has more than 2 properties and more than 2 >>> appearance's >>> Probably, the event reality contains millions appearance's and >> millions >>> of properties. >>> Bohm's work, preferences, preferential states,patterns of preference, >>> show's >>> only some of the appearance's of reality. >>> >>> In an earlier posting, i think it was towards Ian, i gave my reason's >> as >>> to why it >>> is better to stay away from the field of causuality,i maintain my >>> position. >>> i will reconcider only if you can tell me something about causuality >>> that i was >>> not aware of previous to this. >>> >>> I will give some examples, as to why Marsha's book is not in tune with >>> science. >>> >>> >>> suppose the observer is observing the projected shadow of a tree in >> the >>> garden >>> sitting on a bench, did the observer interfere with this reality or >> did >>> he not >>> interfere merely by making the observation.? >>> The only possible answer is that he did not interfere,ie, did not >> create >>> this reality >>> by observing it,nor did he corrupt its appearance. >>> (this is the physikal answer) >>> >>> The answer from quantum science is not to be understood by 99.8 % of >> the >>> audience. >>> The properties of this approach are outside normal expirience, however >> , >>> this does not make them untrue. >>> The book of Marsha is a badly corrupted approach on the >>> copenhagen-convention. >>> In the background scenery of quantum physiks, these approaches are >>> refered to as the copenhagen drama. >>> >>> (this was not the metaphysikal answer.) >>> >>> end.Adrie >>> >>> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> nb, i did not comment further on, because you are projecting fictional >>> reality >>> in plain words , home-brew, moonshined philosophy, occult science. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Actually I've never read Bohm and know nothing of his philosophy. >> "Causation >>> by preference" is a phrase I made up to describe the process of evolution >> as >>> it has been explained by the MoQists. I'm not sure what is meant by your >>> last statement. If observation (i.e., experience) creates the reality of >>> which the observer is a part, then what is the true Reality? It would >> seem >>> that you've constructed a dilemma chasing its tail. >>> >>> >>> Platt said: >>> >>> I think Marsha has excellent responses to your comments, Ham. >>> I would just add that Idealism is absurd on its face. My cat UTOE's >>> existence depends on many things, including his daily dose of Friskies >>> Tuna and Whitefish Medley, but someone looking at him is not >>> among those things, and everyone knows this. >>> >>> >>> Yes, I agree that Marsha has added more insight here than she probably >>> realizes, but what's with this UTOE principle? What I said (to Marsha) >> was >>> that "the CHOICE of value...is fundamental to HUMAN existence," which >> does >>> not include four-legged animals. This doesn't mean cats don't have >>> "preferences" but, rather, that free choice, like intellect, is a >>> fundamentally human attribute. >>> >>> Marsha responded: >>> >>> And isn't this CHOICE only available in a detached awareness? >>> >>> >>> Exactly, Marsha! And it's why I maintain that individual awareness--the >>> conscious self-- is a "negation" of Essence. So why are you running away >>> with the concept that, since existence is relative, Reality is "anything >> we >>> want to make it" or "think it is"? >>> >>> Solipsism is a dangerous foundation for philosophy, as others have >> pointed >>> out, and it doesn't hold up metaphysically. Such thinking overlooks the >>> fact that what we experience is based on our perception of Value, which >>> represents our relation to (i.e., affinity for) the essential Source. It >> is >>> Value that is absolute, not our Choice of its relational manifestations. >> All >>> the principles and laws of an ordered universe are derived from Essential >>> Value. This is what gives the experiential world the coherence and >>> intelligent design that satisfies our emotional and intellectual >>> sensibilities. >>> >>> Despite these conceptual faults, I'm generally pleased at the course the >> MD >>> is now taking. I think it has opened some new vistas which will round >> out >>> RMP's thesis with a more workable and comprehensible ontology. >> Ultimately >>> this could lead to a new kind of "pragmatism" that even William James >> would >>> have found commendable. (But this may be overly optimistic.) >>> >>> Anyway, thanks for all your "free thoughts". >>> >>> Essentially yours, >>> Ham >>> >>> 2010/9/26 Ham Priday <[email protected]> >>> >>>> Hi Adrie, also Platt and Marsha -- >>>> >>>> On 9/25 at 11:04AM Adrie Kintziger wrote:. >>>> >>>> Personally i think, Ham, that "causation by preference" is David Bohm's >>>>> work, and that Pirsig was enormously inspired by Bohm. >>>>> >>>>> Interpreting Bohm's impressions on preferential states is not theft but >>>>> science. It is you Ham, declaring that Pirsig's theory of causuation >> by >>>>> preference,...etc, is Pirsig's and wrong. But i think Pirsig is >> correct , >>>>> and Bohm is correct , the falsification to declare it as this >> projection >>>>> you made, is a Hammification. ... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Observation creates reality (as we observe it), but the observer is not >>>>> reality (as the observer is part of reality). >>>>> >>>> >>>> Actually I've never read Bohm and know nothing of his philosophy. >>>> "Causation by preference" is a phrase I made up to describe the process >> of >>>> evolution as it has been explained by the MoQists. I'm not sure what is >>>> meant by your last statement. If observation (i.e., experience) creates >> the >>>> reality of which the observer is a part, then what is the true Reality? >> It >>>> would seem that you've constructed a dilemma chasing its tail. >>>> >>>> >>>> Platt said: >>>> >>>>> I think Marsha has excellent responses to your comments, Ham. >>>>> I would just add that Idealism is absurd on its face. My cat UTOE's >>>>> existence depends on many things, including his daily dose of Friskies >>>>> Tuna and Whitefish Medley, but someone looking at him is not >>>>> among those things, and everyone knows this. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Yes, I agree that Marsha has added more insight here than she probably >>>> realizes, but what's with this UTOE principle? What I said (to Marsha) >> was >>>> that "the CHOICE of value...is fundamental to HUMAN existence," which >> does >>>> not include four-legged animals. This doesn't mean cats don't have >>>> "preferences" but, rather, that free choice, like intellect, is a >>>> fundamentally human attribute. >>>> >>>> Marsha responded: >>>> >>>> And isn't this CHOICE only available in a detached awareness? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Exactly, Marsha! And it's why I maintain that individual awareness--the >>>> conscious self-- is a "negation" of Essence. So why are you running >> away >>>> with the concept that, since existence is relative, Reality is "anything >> we >>>> want to make it" or "think it is"? >>>> >>>> Solipsism is a dangerous foundation for philosophy, as others have >> pointed >>>> out, and it doesn't hold up metaphysically. Such thinking overlooks the >>>> fact that what we experience is based on our perception of Value, which >>>> represents our relation to (i.e., affinity for) the essential Source. >> It is >>>> Value that is absolute, not our Choice of its relational manifestations. >> All >>>> the principles and laws of an ordered universe are derived from >> Essential >>>> Value. This is what gives the experiential world the coherence and >>>> intelligent design that satisfies our emotional and intellectual >>>> sensibilities. >>>> >>>> Despite these conceptual faults, I'm generally pleased at the course the >> MD >>>> is now taking. I think it has opened some new vistas which will round >> out >>>> RMP's thesis with a more workable and comprehensible ontology. >> Ultimately >>>> this could lead to a new kind of "pragmatism" that even William James >> would >>>> have found commendable. (But this may be overly optimistic.) >>>> >>>> Anyway, thanks for all your "free thoughts". >>>> >>>> Essentially yours, >>>> Ham >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 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/md/archives.html >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> parser >>> 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/md/archives.html >> >> >> >> ___ >> >> >> 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/md/archives.html >> > > > > -- > parser > 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/md/archives.html ___ 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/md/archives.html
