hi , Eddo. Eddo wrote....
But what is reality? From my point of view does the immaginairy information I experience as real(my consciousness) only exist in my mind as a immaginairy information difference between what I already subjectively am and what I objectively encounter every moment. Thats the reason why I resonate with my surrounding world in just a limited way. It's our purpose to resonate more because that increases our sensational experiences. That's our will or driving force so to speak. How I understand these increasing decreasing sensations as information is completely relative to what I already am. Adrie Idd Baudrillard,maar deze standpunten zijn van geen enkele hoogte of intellectuele draagkracht meer in deze tijden. Onzin is het echter niet compleet,en sommige dingen zijn van belang. Je moet echter weten de juiste abstracties te maken en een betere synthese. -een voorbeeld ieder individu betrekt zijn realiteitsbeeld uit de wisselwerking van het 'zelf'' met zijn directe omgeving en de andere denkers... de andere 'zelven',....de omgeving en de wisselwerking zijn even bepalend als de interpretatie ervan en de relatieve draagkracht van de vrije wil. Baudrillard noteerde slechts wat al geweten was maar misbegreep het zelf. Dit terzijde. I did read your proposals to import math in language, to import wavefunctions like resonance into filosophical toughts...its Not a bad idea however it is an existing idea that gains a lot of intellectual weight in high end philosophy. In onze context hier echter kom je er nergens mee simpelweg omdat veel zogezegde filosofen nauwelijks het verschil begrijpen tussen denotatie en connotatie....met andere woorden , nog aan het prille begin staan van het leren begrijpen van taal. Je mag dit niet als kritiek zien, Eddo,want ik zie je interesse in filosofie en dat is aan te moedigen maar het komt nogal wikipedia-achtig over allemaal.Dat is ook niet af te wijzen maar mag niet het enige zijn als intellectuele onderbouw. groeten, adrie(belg) 2013/4/2 Eddo Rats <[email protected]> > Hi Joe and Antony and everybody else > > you got me there Joe :-D I am just, like many philosophhers, a theoretical > system/map builder, I was just speaking from my baudrillard map point of > view. > > But what is reality? From my point of view does the immaginairy information > I experience as real(my consciousness) only exist in my mind as a > immaginairy information difference between what I already subjectively am > and what I objectively encounter every moment. Thats the reason why I > resonate with my surrounding world in just a limited way. It's our purpose > to resonate more because that increases our sensational experiences. That's > our will or driving force so to speak. How I understand these increasing or > decreasing sensations as information is completely relative to what I > already am. > > Eddo > > > 2013/4/2 Joseph Maurer <[email protected]> > > > Hi Eddo Rats, > > > > How can a moment be theoretical? If a moment is imaginary it can be > > described as an indefinable reality of infinite possibilities. If the > > moment is real it is existing reality. > > > > Joe > > > > > > On 4/1/13 2:33 PM, "Eddo Rats" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > joe, > > > > > > every moment now is theoretical a moment of infinite possibillities. > for > > > some part we trust to know what to expect. I would call that SQ the > other > > > part that we can't trust is DQ. and of course are the things we least > > > expect to happen the most emotional. > > > > > > Eddo > > > > > > > > > 2013/4/1 Joseph Maurer <[email protected]> > > > > > >> Hi Eddo Rats, > > >> > > >> Welcome. I am not a mathematician. I appreciate that "Mathematically > > >> approachable" is a description for rigid logic. > > >> > > >> DQ is indefinable. I have to tweak my consciousness to try to find > > >> something in myself which validates a perception of the indefinable. > I > > >> cannot define Love. I accept Love to represent an intensity of > > indefinable > > >> DQ. > > >> > > >> Joe > > >> > > >> > > >> On 3/31/13 2:26 PM, "Eddo Rats" <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > > >>> My definition of quality is: Quality represents "That" where I can > > >>> identify > > >> with. > > >> The trick in understanding this definition is in the two > > >>> dimensional > > >> character of the word "Identification". > > >> You can Identify a "What" > > >>> and you can Identify "With" > > >> "What" is represented by the information > > >>> dimension. > > >> "With" is represented by the sensation (emotion?) dimension. > > >> This > > >>> is all Mathematicly approachable. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> 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 > > > > > > 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
