Hello Dan, > > > Dan: > > Since the MOQ states that ideas come before matter, then it is our > ideas about the histories of rocks that take precedent over rocks > themselves. That is (what I took to be) the point in ZMM about the > laws of physics and the number system being seen as ghosts. The > history of rocks exists as an idea in our heads. > > Ron: > Not that it is missed, but to punch up the notion that matter is an idea, > which I believe the statement "ideas come before matter" illustrates, > should change the way the conversation progresses from here. > > > Therefore the history of rocks literally IS rocks themselves there is no > distinction save the static/dynamic one.
Dan: First of all, I wouldn't say that matter is an idea. Matter is an inorganic pattern of quality. It is the idea of matter that comes first. That doesn't mean that matter is an idea, however. Did you ever stub your toe on an idea? No. An idea isn't physical. Matter is. I would say the history of rocks is how we interpret a rock. Where I live was once a shallow inland sea, or so geologists say. It seems that no matter what rock I pick up, when I look closely I see an amalgamation of tiny fossils resembling sea shells. I take it that those are the calcified remnants of creatures that lived in the shallow inland sea several million years ago or there-about. That is how I view the history of rocks. Someone else may look at the same rocks and form a very different opinion about their history, however. It is like the man chasing the squirrel around the tree. Did he go around the squirrel? Ron: And thats the type of inquirey I feel we ought to be pursuing, questions of meaning as refered to context. In this spirit and approach I ask of the statement "That doesn't mean that matter is an idea, however. Did you ever stub your toe on an idea? No. An idea isn't physical. Matter is." To be sure then, when we say "matter" we then mean "subject matter" A distinction in experience which a givin subject matter exists with, which by our MoQ standards, is meant to be taken as one whole experience. And by your own criteria of DQ being pre-intellectual, the experience of pain felt preceeds the idea of the "stubbing of the toe" or what our toe has been stubbed apon. Thereby by our MoQ formulations experience comes before ideas such as physical matter or ideas as a genera. What I am emphasizing is a broader awareness of how experience is rendered intelligible thereby in this process creating the reality that is experienced. because what we generally term as "real" is what we believe we know well with a sort of certainty, for example, stubbing ones toe on physical matter, or the pushing back of our environment apon our senses and ideas or our "intelligibility". I mean to say that the act of intelligibility of knowing and understanding is composed of the experience of memory. Without memory, how can there be any form of Quality. Dan: So to say the history of rocks is rocks themselves seems to point to rocks that exist before the idea of rocks... that everyone who examines those rocks will agree on their history. I don't believe that is the case... not within the framework of the MOQ, anyway. But perhaps I am misunderstanding what you're saying... Ron: In the context stated previously above, to say the history (the understanding) of rocks IS rocks themselves is to say that our understanding of rocks is activily participating in the creation of the experience of rocks. But to grasp this requires an understanding about how people understand experience. Thank you, .... 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
