Hello everyone On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 7:11 AM, X Acto <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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"
Dan: Perhaps in a certain context... but in the framework of the MOQ when we say "matter" we mean "object matter." Inorganic and biological patterns correspond to objects while social and intellectual patterns are subjective. Ron: > 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. Dan: I don't think that's right... there's an analogy in ZMM concerning experience and taking up handfuls of sand: "We take a handful of sand from the endless landscape of awareness around us and call that handful of sand the world." There is no "one whole experience" as such... we divvy it up into portions we're able to assimilate. These are called static patterns of value. Ron: > 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. Dan: I would say the experience of pain comes later along with the ideas and oaths. Ron: > Thereby by our MoQ formulations experience comes before ideas such as > physical matter or ideas as a genera. Dan: Pure experience comes before ideas but the experience of pain and objects isn't pure. It has been sullied by the intellect telling us what happened to our toe and why it hurts so badly. Ron: > 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: That is the point of direct experience/Dynamic Quality. Memory comes later. Dynamic Quality is the leading edge of the train of experience. There is no memory, no recognition, or no intellectual knowledge there. Dynamic Quality is always new... it comes as a surprise. That is how there is Quality without memory. > > 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. Dan: We understand experience in many ways... inorganically, we experience our bodies holding together on account of the molecules' affinity to do so . Biologically, DNA experiences reality as it reacts to it by evolving into new and better patterns. Socially, we experience learning and sharing with each other. Intellectually, we create the world as we know it. Dynamically, we grow into action. History as I understand the word is an intellectual pattern of quality. When we say the history of rocks (or the history of anything) we are denoting an evolutionary chain of events resulting in what we see today. Thank you, Dan 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
