http://phys.org/news/2013-04-einstein-gravity-theory-toughest-bizarre.html
2013/4/27 ADRIE KINTZIGER <[email protected]> > David Buchanan > " intellectual values are values in and of themselves. You don't arrive at > them by some other species of value" > > > Adrie > this statement will go to my son by e-mail David.This is what Pirsig is > meaning to say,when he states " it arrived at me in a dynamical way" > > One day long time ago, a patent office clerck was kinda bored with reality > as whe know it, and took a white sheet approach, an empty sheet approach on > gravity,relativity,time,speed, etc, and wrote out the complete special > relativity theory, and general relativity. > none of the facts were derived from value's, none of the value's were > derived from facts.At first , there was nothing, after this ,it was all > there. > It seems to be so that it arrived at him in a dynamical way. > Until today, what he wrote down,then, is neatly in congruence with quantum > physiks.Every day further evidence is found that reality can be derived > from intellect,before reality itself became a factual entity. > > duvel tripel hop 9.5 °, best beer in the world > > > > > > 2013/4/27 david buchanan <[email protected]> > >> >> Dan said: >> ...Remember, ideas are patterns of value. Morals and quality are >> synonymous in the MOQ. I doubt anyone here only keeps an eye on logical >> consistency. But if a contributor consistently contradicts themselves it >> points to a lack of quality. >> >> >> David H replied: >> I agree here. But why is there a lack of quality? Why does a contributor, >> in your eyes, consistently contradict themselves? That's what I'm pointing >> towards. Everyone has different values. So at some time or another - no >> matter who you discuss anything with you will at some stage come upon a >> disagreement. They value something which you don't which causes them to >> deem their words with coherence, and you the opposite. ...If your values >> are better than mine - why is that? Or are there other values which are >> better? Why do you have the values which you do? Why do you deem them of >> value? We live in a society today where people are almost frightened of >> openly discussing their values and morals for fear of offending or >> appearing insensitive. But the values/morals of the participants in a >> discussion are not irrelevant and to be actively avoided (as is >> traditionally thought) - but are the *most* important part of a >> philosophical discussion. >> >> dmb says: >> I can see that you're trying to hook up values and intellect, even saying >> that values are the MOST important part of a philosophical discussion. And >> yet there is still a SOMish separation implied in what you're saying. This >> is contained in the questions you pose; everybody has different values, you >> say, which causes us to disagree about what is and is not coherent. If your >> values are better than mine, why is that? This implies that the meaning >> of logical consistency differs from person to person, that the distinction >> between coherence and incoherence is just a matter of one's personal >> feelings and attitudes. It just doesn't work like that, David. It's not as >> if each individual has their own private mythos or that each person is a >> culture of one, an isolated individual with no real way to communicate with >> another soul, excepts as two ships passing the night. That kind of >> solipsistic alienation is what you get with SOM, wherein each individual >> has her own way of representing >> reality. But in the MOQ, we are composed of the static patterns of our >> time and culture and language. Marsha is not from some other place or time. >> She speaks English (sort of) and lives in the 21st century West, just like >> everybody else here. >> >> But the thing is, as people keep saying to you repeatedly, intellectual >> values are values in and of themselves. You don't arrive at them by way of >> some other species of value. I mean, health is a biological good, fame and >> fortune are social level values, while truth is what's good and right >> intellectually. Again, in the MOQ intellectual quality is the highest form >> of value, the most moral. This is protected in the MOQ's moral codes and >> it's supposed to be protected in the Bill of Rights. This is supposed to be >> an evolutionary advance over social level morality - what usually counts as >> morality in the church, as well as the over the worship of fame and >> fortune. Intellectual level morals are even opposed to these lower level in >> very important ways. >> >> Long story short, intellect is not the enemy. SOM and amoral objectivity >> is the enemy. And those are two very different things. >> >> And then there is the distinction between concepts and reality, the >> difference between a knowable, definable metaphysical system and the >> reality (the undefinable Quality) that it talks about. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 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 > -- 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
