Hi Ian I certainly agree, science is great with SQ, measuring, quantifying, finding the maths to model and predict rates of change, etc, there is also interesting ideas about causality and explanations about how levels relate in science, but whilst staring at and conceptualising all the SQ it can miss the bigger picture that a philosophy of experience can provide, the islands pop out of and disappear back into the great sea of change, the sea is the power driving the islands to become and be-go, regularities and patterns seem to follow rules and laws, but that is a time frame illusion, everything changes, first becoming and then disappearing again, why is there this constant change, can we explain it, not really, it just is, it changes because it can, does it pursue what is better, sometimes it clearly does, does it take back its own achieved goods, it clearly does, does it toy with evil, it seems to, is the totality of the world fragmented and struggling with ig norance, hard to deny. Good to know where the sheltering islands are and what they have to offer, but forget the sea at your peril, and the sublime experiences it also provides. It is wrong to personify DQ and SQ, but you can see that much religion is a confused and personified projection onto god of the qualities of SQ and DQ, asking what to value, trying to work out the rules, fear and love of cosmic powers of creation and destruction. Where religion, however warped, points towards the full range of DQ and SQ aspects, science is more biased to SQ, to understanding regularities and Laws, in a wsy a western offshoot of the obsessions of Christianity, and our politics of protestant individualism, in the East they remained closure to DQ it seems. Is MOQ a new form of secularism, secularism without scientism? Is scientism SQ science without DQ?
Thoughts? David M Ian Glendinning <[email protected]> wrote: >Wow, Joe, >I'm moved to say absolutely. I agree. > >See my most recent blog post today - but in essence, the objective logic of >"science" cannot cope with the reality of DQ - truly radical empiricism is >before objectification and hence beyond scientific logic. > >Ian. >On 7 Oct 2013 20:49, "Joseph Maurer" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi David M and All, >> >> Modern science owes a great debt to the rigid logic in mathematics. >> Mathematics can only describe definable SQ. >> >> DQ is indefinable, outside a purview of mathematical structure. This >> explains the need for the reality of DQ/SQ metaphysics in the further >> discernment of reality beyond the logic in mathematics. >> >> Joe >> >> >> On 10/7/13 8:10 AM, "David Morey" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > Great, now my proposal is that we then accept that percepts contain >> > regularities and patterns, can we not measure percepts, is that not >> what >> > science does? This is why MOQ can embrace science and realism but reject >> SOM, >> >> >> 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
