Greetzz, Ham.-Mark.
(Anthropocentrism (note the correct spelling), ..as i wrote it,
antropocentrism,
is the valid Flemish spelling,and in Flemish both anthropo and antropo are
allowed.Anthropo,-more formal, and antropo in common speech.
The way Flanders deviated from this is that the Th,way of writing is
regarded
as derived from older Latin.
The reason i'v been asking for this is a possible upcoming conflict in your
theory
as Anthropocentrism is the opposite twinbrother of 'Theocentrism', and using
them intertwined like Mark-,and you , sometimes by implied formulations.
>see
"Yes, we can be seen as dark glasses, I prefer that we are one of the
many eyes of God, as Ham and I have been writing."end.
------------------------------------------------------------------
(diffracting the creator's entity, by shredding it into the cluster of
the human
race , is still placing(imho) the creator on top of the pyramid.; and
in such
Anthropocentrism seems to conflict Theocentrism.)
This is only a remark, not a critic,better not to breastfeed it into an
upcoming
problem.
I'm not offering things of Hawking or Pirsig to make them conflict with your
work
If i read it closely, and follow all possible implications, the least i can
say is that
a number of good patterns is shining thrue in you work.
You are a lot lesser conflicting these paths than you declare yourself.
Try this one, model dependent realism.
You Ham, are trying to develop a model dependent realism of your own,your
theory's here displayed, 'essence',' essentialism', etc, if Hawking and
Pirsig
are allowed the valid and valuable approach of model dependent realism, i
can see no reason as to why you should not develop your own model.
Your model is not the top of the pyramid trying to overrule the MOQ, but to
be seen as an entity(for now) that locates and poses itself still at the
intellectual level ( a projected individual treshold antropho/theocentrism
induced)
Be carefull with the implications,a reactive devaluation-based system will
fail the test of common sense.
>>Ham, quote " does the atheist Hawking mean--, etc"
----------------------------
If you are writing it like this , Ham, it sound like you are fighting the
antichrist,the atheism in Hawking's approach, thinking you need to conflict
him because of....,
Personally i'll think Hawking is more of an apatheist then he is an atheist.
I see no need to subscribe to his apo/thei conflict approach for you, but
your work and approach can take the benefits of his insights on model
dependent realism.
I have no time to react on all what is presented her, but allow me to offer
some
clarification,if i'm stepping over a lot of things, it is not to avoid them,
...
roll them back in if you like.
So, your question about what Mark wants to say in regard of the centre of
the galaxy.
Mark
"Technically we are at the "center" of the universe."
Ham,
"Evidently Mark is an anthropocentrist also. When it comes to experiencing
reality, however, I would chuck the dark glasses and return to my 'prism
analogy' in which pure, undifferentiated Value is converted to a band of
discrete values that are experienced as the properties of
being-in-the-world. (I offer this with apologies to the quantum physicists
who try so hard to make objective data out of sub-atomic phenomena beyond
the range of human sensibility.)"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
comment , Adrie.
Mark is correct: technically spoken we are (Earth, our universe, our milky
way)
about exactly at the centrepoint of the observable universum.
All observations, the red-shift,the age of the universum,the background
radiation,
the models,theory of relativity, etc are suppotive to the idea as well the
observations that the Hubble volume is expanding around our milky way,but
moving away from it in all directions very rapidly, the empty
space between the galaxy's is expanding.
Very strange , and remarkable, if one take's anthropocentrism and hold it
againt the light,it is about as congruent a possible with the idea of our
central place , technically spoken, in the universe.
If you like a good piece on this cental theme.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0001/0001428v1.pdf
Its a very difficult piece,if you read it, forget all math, just read the
concluding formulations,it contains all mathemathikal evidence of the
inflation surrounding us
and locates the milky way at the centre of the galaxy.
Maybe the term 'monte carlo events' will trigger your curiosty, but leave it
for what it is.Its high end-stuff for physicians.
Something else grasped my attention.
this;
Ham , Quote
"When it comes to experiencing reality, however, I would chuck the dark
glasses and return to my 'prism analogy' in which pure, undifferentiated
Value is converted to a band of discrete values that are experienced as the
properties of being-in-the-world. (I offer this with apologies to the
quantum physicists who try so hard to make objective data out of sub-atomic
phenomena beyond the range of human sensibility.)"
-----------------------------------------------
The last sentence.
so many thing are outside our range of perceptive direct observable range.
Radarwaves, we cannot observe them, but by the use of them, and the
implicatios of their behaviour we can safely 'assume' that they will be used
to guide our aeroplanes safely.
Electronbeams, we cannot observe them directly, but it is safe to assume
they
are ther because they project an image on your colortv.
X rays, we can only observe their effects, the rest is outside our range,we
can safely make the 'assumption' that they are ther when used to make a
image of our lungs,....
A car apssing by at night , in the first snow,as the first car passing by,
only leaving traces...,it is not a bad 'assumption' to state that a car was
passing by,even if we did not see it passing by...
Radioactivity, far outside our range of obsevables, so it is not there? is
it safe to make the assumption that we may place our bed in
Pripyat/Tchernobyl?,..because we cannot observe radioactivity?
Is it a good thing if i reverse your sentence toward
religion/theism/creationisme?
can you prove their existence objectively?....and reframe it in the
sentence's context?(no need to answer it)
I will leave it here , for today.
Adrie
2011/2/18 Ham Priday <[email protected]>
>
> Greetings, Adrie (Mark mentioned) --
>
>
> On Fri., Feb. 18, 2011 at 1:59 AM, "Adrie Kintziger <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> Ham, Can you clarify on how you define the term Antropocentrism?
>> In order to react on your article, better to keep in tune with your terms.
>> good work Btw.
>>
>
> Thanks, Adrie. (I didn't receive a "sent" copy of this post in my box, so
> I sent a duplicate before spotting your response.) I noted Mark's
> assertion, "Technically we are at the 'center' of the universe." Although I
> question the word "technically" -- does he mean metaphysically, perhaps? --
> the statement suggests an anthropocentric worldview.
>
> Anthropocentrism (note the correct spelling) is the belief that man is the
> most significant (i.e., "central") entity in the universe. The
> anthropocentrist interprets the world in terms of human values and
> experiences. (Don't we all?) I have always maintained that man is a
> "special creation" -- a cognizant creature endowed with an exquisite sense
> of value and the freedom to act as his values direct him. In my philosophy
> of Essence, value-sensibility is the essential core of human individuality
> from which all being is actualized.
>
> My commendation to you folks is based only on the statements recently
> quoted. I'm of course aware that they do not necessarily represent your
> complete ontogeny.
>
> Best regards,
>
> 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
