Oh my God , I've dropped my wine ! Insh'Ahlla Sent from my iPhone
> On 4 Apr 2016, at 12:12, John Carl <ridgecoy...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Nick, > > >> >> Does what you write about Genesis and the origin of the World apply to >> what Bodvar is quoting about Gravity ?? >> > > > I doubt it. I think Bodvar went off the deep end quite a while ago and he > thinks the same about me. We don't agree on much. > > > Pirsig didn't say gravity didn't exist "objectively". He said the law of > gravity didn't objectively exist, and he was using logic to confound the > arguments of his enemy. Because if only "objective facts" are real, then > why is the law of gravity, "real"? It was "merely" in your head, so > obviously there's a root issue with your metaphysics there... > > But we get most of our unspoken assumptions and connotations of "god" from > that old book, and it's important to point out that the modern > interpretations of that book aren't a sound basis for rational discussion. > > > >> >> >> I don’t think I ever quite nailed the ZAMM explanation of Gravity. It >> could be because I’m thinking that there is the concept (law ?) of Gravity >> and the phenomenon of Gravity and maybe even Gravity itself ?! >> > > For convenience sake, we divide the world. It's fine. Just don't forget > that all this is "Just and analogy". We have a very real concept that we > use to deal with our experience of "gravity" and when we hold that > conceptual scheme lightly, and intelligently, we can use it without being > trapped by it. We can progress. That seems to be a good thing, > intellectual evolution toward betterness, wouldn't you agree? > > My only argument for a presonal God, is if such a choice, or belief, makes > one's life better. Makes things cohere. Makes things work out nicely, in > a poetical and harmonious fashion. For some people, it's obviously a huge > stoppage, and they should stay away from it till they can handle it, I > guess. Ideas come to us in their own time. All we can do is respond > positively or negatively. The only judgement that matters is the judgement > of time, telling us whether our choice was good or bad. > > Royce said if you would know what he meant by "absolute", then forget > rhetorical argument and simply try and undo what has been done. That's the > only absolute. > > > > >> So, I assume, when arguing with a SOMite that Gravity didn’t exist before >> Newton defined it, they would say but the phenomenon of Gravity existed >> before him. The Chinese had witnessed it and described it (not sure that >> that is the case, by the way !) >> >> >> > > > Short story: I was around 12 years old and my dad had joined the Santa > Cruz 4Wheel drive club. We'd go down on the weekends to this place called > Marina where there were these extensive sand dunes and we could play to our > heart's content in Jeeps and dune buggies. Mountains of sand, trails > through them and no real rules. It all got shut down pretty quick, but st > the time it sure was fun, learning how to drive a stick, learning about > traction and momentum and mass in the proper way, through direct > experience. But that's not my point. My point is a small saying written > on a bathroom wall, in the town of Marina, California. Graffitti, that > blew my mind at the time because I'd never thought of it that way before > and I'd never seen anything profound written in a public restroom before. > And you've probably heard it, it's not a unique or special saying, trite > and corny, now, but at the time it seemed fresh and dynamic to me - there > is no gravity, the earth sucks. > > JC > > > > > > >> Best Regards >> >> >> >> Nick >> >> >> >> *From:* John Carl [mailto:ridgecoy...@gmail.com] >> *Sent:* Friday, 1 April 2016 6:10 a.m. >> *To:* Nick Summerhayes >> *Cc:* John McConnell; Henry Gurr; moq_disc...@moqtalk.org; Anthony; >> Antonio Italy; Andre Broersen; skut...@online.no >> >> *Subject:* Re: What's wrong with "a personal God"? >> >> >> >> Nick/Wes, >> >> The fact that we get stuck sometimes in our categories, illustrates what I >> think of as a false problem in your question: >> >> The question is… was there a point in time (in the MOQ’s version of events >> and the SOM version of events) where the idea/concept of the Dewey Decimal >> system did not exist ??! >> >> >> >> I think I’m assuming that under SOM there was a time it didn’t exist and >> under MOQ it always existed because for something to exist under MOQ >> doesn’t necessarily require an ‘object’. >> >> Objectivity is such a false category. To bring the issue around to the >> idea of a "personal" God, I'd like to illustrate from Ellul where the >> problem lies: >> >> >> >> "For the first two chapters of Genesis, everything has been distorted, >> beginning with the infusion of Greek philosophy toward the end of the third >> century via the theologians. The problem is that Greek philosophy asks >> questions to which the Bible does not in the least seek to reply. The >> Greeks were interested in the origin of the world, but I will seek to show >> that the first two chapters of Genesis have no interest in this subject >> whatsoever. Once theologians began to think along the lines of Greek >> philosophy, they began to interpret the first two chapters of Genesis as an >> answer to the origin of the world. In other words, they began to read these >> texts as answers to philosophical or metaphysical questions, resulting in a >> complete distortion of what these texts are all about, which has nothing to >> do with the origin of the world. Similar problems began to occur when Greek >> concepts, such as objective knowledge, were adopted. This concept is >> entirely foreign to Jewish thought. Hence, we need to take certain >> precautions. We need to know how to read a particular text. For example, it >> is impossible to read a medieval text the way we read a contemporary novel. >> They are rooted in completely different contexts." >> >> You have to admit that Ellul was on to something there. imho, he would >> have made a fine MoQist. >> >> Don't have much time today, I'm polishing up my presentation for tomorrow >> in San Francisco. Hopefully it will all go well and I'll video it so I can >> share it with y'll. >> >> JC >> >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 6:44 PM, Nick Summerhayes <n...@headway.co.nz> >> wrote: >> >> Thanks for all your efforts there, John, >> >> >> >> It’s interesting reading. >> >> >> >> I realise that using the MOQ we want to get away from the ‘concept’ of >> objects… but feel like we need to ‘bridge the gap’ if we are ever going to >> give SOM people a pathway to join us ?! >> >> I used to think that ‘objects’ would be found in the Inorganic and >> Biological levels but not the Social and Intellectual levels. >> >> >> >> But then would get into heavy chats will SOMites about an idea in the >> Intellectual level requiring ‘objects’ of some kind in the Brain to exist… >> be it a magnetized ‘memory cell’, synapse or whatever. >> >> >> >> It begat another thought experiment !... >> >> I thought of the concept or idea of the Dewey Decimal Library system in >> the Intellectual level (maybe the Social level ??) and it needing the >> Brains of people in the Western world to exist/survive and be passed down >> to generations. >> >> >> >> Say we have a perfect description of the Dewey Decimal Library system >> written down in English on paper. >> >> >> >> Then we have the asteroid hit which wipes out all races on Earth except >> the Eskimos and none of them speak English or just have rudimentary English >> (no offence to any Eskimos reading this). >> >> >> >> So there we are with no one on Earth knowing what the heck the Dewey >> Decimal system is. >> >> Eventually the Eskimos discover the document and work out what it means in >> detail… a bit like Westerners with the Egyptian hieroglyphics. Suddenly we >> have Libraries again operating the Dewey Decimal System. >> >> >> >> The question is… was there a point in time (in the MOQ’s version of events >> and the SOM version of events) where the idea/concept of the Dewey Decimal >> system did not exist ??! >> >> >> >> >> >> I think I’m assuming that under SOM there was a time it didn’t exist and >> under MOQ it always existed because for something to exist under MOQ >> doesn’t necessarily require an ‘object’. >> >> Although I could see us arguing until blue in the face with entrenched SOM >> people in the above scenario. >> >> >> >> Confused, in New Zealand. >> >> >> >> Nick >> >> >> >> a.k.a. Wes McGuinness >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* John McConnell [mailto:jlmcconn...@bellsouth.net] >> *Sent:* Thursday, 31 March 2016 3:42 a.m. >> >> >> *To:* Nick Summerhayes >> *Cc:* 'Henry Gurr'; 'John Carl'; moq_disc...@moqtalk.org; 'Anthony'; >> 'Antonio Italy'; 'Andre Broersen'; skut...@online.no >> *Subject:* RE: What's wrong with "a personal God"? >> >> >> >> Good questions there, Nick! I’ll have a go at some answers and let Henry >> and others catch me where I fall. >> >> >> >> I would start by saying that a fact is an increment of “negotiated” >> knowledge or information. For example, it is a [verisimilitudinous] “fact” >> that in a vacuum fall at the same rate, regardless of their masses. The >> Newtonian equations for gravity constitute a “theory of gravity”. The >> theory relates and interprets a number of related facts. Newton’s theory >> of gravity worked very well for a long time and still does. But Einstein’s >> relativistic theory of gravity works better because it relates and explains >> a wider range of facts. Einstein’s theory gives a more verisimilitudinous >> explanation of the phenomenon of gravity than Newton’s does. Using the >> “map” analogy, a fact is a feature of the terrain; a theory is the map that >> shows how the feature relates to the rest of the landscape. >> >> >> >> Now about the thought experiment. I’m not clever enough to analyze it >> completely, but I have an instinct that says that somehow there’s something >> wrong with the premise. There’s a flaw somewhere in the notion that there >> can be a totally “empty” block of space-time. A quantum physicist would >> probably say that the uncertainty principle excludes the possibility of an >> “empty” portion of space-time. There would be virtual particles in there >> cavorting throughout the space. The box is a stable pattern in a >> space-time continuum, in which the “inside” is continuous and >> indistinguishable from the “outside”. I guess I’m saying that >> “inside/outside” is an artificial distinction. I have no idea if that is >> valid at all; it’s just what came to me “dynamically”. >> >> >> >> Space/time – “I have it on good authority” [David Bohm. Menas Kafatos] >> that space/time/matter/energy are mutually interrelated. There isn’t a >> space-time container that matter and energy exist in or expand into. At >> its origin the universe expanded, generating its space-time as it did so. >> [I picture a tank laying down its track and running on it and picking it up >> again.] These authors affirm that as the universe is expanding, so is >> space-time. Another useful image is that of a balloon being inflated. As >> the balloon expands, two spots on its surface become more distant from each >> other. But the spots are not separating from each other in a pre-existing >> container of a fixed size; they are separating as space-time expands. >> >> >> >> Does any of this make sense? >> >> >> >> Good luck! >> >> >> >> >> >> John McConnell >> >> Home: 407-857-2004 >> >> Cell: 407-867-2192 >> >> Email: jlmcconn...@bellsouth.net >> >> >> >> *From:* Nick Summerhayes [mailto:n...@headway.co.nz <n...@headway.co.nz>] >> *Sent:* Monday, March 28, 2016 6:45 PM >> *To:* John McConnell >> *Cc:* 'Henry Gurr'; 'John Carl'; moq_disc...@moqtalk.org; 'Anthony'; >> 'Antonio Italy'; 'Andre Broersen'; skut...@online.no >> *Subject:* RE: What's wrong with "a personal God"? >> >> >> >> Thanks John, >> >> >> >> When posting on blogs I like to ask what becomes of the previous ‘fact’. >> Possibly a bad example (of so called facts), but is Einstein’s ‘gravity’ >> (relativity and the warping of space/time) a fact and Newton’s gravity not ? >> >> I guess it comes down to Pirsig/Anthony’s “use the ‘best’ (map) one, e.g. >> Einstein’s gravity for Mercury’s transit around the Sun. >> >> >> >> Talking Space/Time, I also try a thought experiment whereby we remove all >> ‘objects’ from a cubic metre of Space/Time… e.g. a lead-lined box to keep >> out radiation and neutrinos, then suck out all matter with a vacuum, and >> have the box coated with a substance that deflects radio waves. >> >> >> >> What is in the box ? Dark Matter ? Or absolutely nothing ? Just DQ ?? >> >> >> >> Also, are ‘we’ generating more Space/Time for the Universe(s) to expand >> into or is it a finite resource ? >> >> >> >> Kind Regards >> >> >> >> Nick >> >> >> >> *From:* John McConnell [mailto:jlmcconn...@bellsouth.net >> <jlmcconn...@bellsouth.net>] >> *Sent:* Tuesday, 29 March 2016 4:57 a.m. >> *To:* Nick Summerhayes >> *Cc:* 'Henry Gurr'; 'John Carl'; moq_disc...@moqtalk.org; 'Anthony'; >> 'Antonio Italy'; 'Andre Broersen'; skut...@online.no >> *Subject:* RE: What's wrong with "a personal God"? >> >> >> >> Nick, >> >> I think the best of scientists will tell you that there is no such thing >> as a “raw fact”. There are *data* (from Latin for “given”), some of >> which may be passively obtained, but “facts” are *factus* (from the >> Latin for “made”). Facts are not “observed”; they are “negotiated”. Any >> “scientific fact” exists only in the terms of, and by virtue of, the >> theoretical context and the empirical process of that negotiation. >> [Henry? Confirm? Deny? Correct?] >> >> Best regards, >> >> >> >> John McConnell >> >> Home: 407-857-2004 >> >> Cell: 407-867-2192 >> >> Email: jlmcconn...@bellsouth.net >> >> >> >> *From:* Nick Summerhayes [mailto:n...@headway.co.nz <n...@headway.co.nz>] >> *Sent:* Monday, March 28, 2016 3:29 AM >> *To:* John McConnell >> *Cc:* Henry Gurr; John Carl; moq_disc...@moqtalk.org; Anthony; Antonio >> Italy; Andre Broersen; skut...@online.no >> *Subject:* Re: What's wrong with "a personal God"? >> >> >> >> I've wondered about the term 'scientific fact'. Should it be 'current >> scientific fact'. For Science to work shouldn't the most recent fact be >> prepared to be replaced at a moments notice ?! >> >> >> >> Should we make the term scientific fact redundant ? >> >> >> On 28/03/2016, at 5:04 pm, John McConnell <jlmcconn...@bellsouth.net> >> wrote: >> >> Henry, >> >> Your last sentence says it all: >> >> “To me, outside what these persons tell us, there is no way to know if >> any of this is "true", *or scientifically provable.”* >> >> >> >> Your positing of “scientifically provable” as the criterion of truth makes >> me feel that you and I have little common ground for dialogue. Most of >> what really means anything to me in my life is beyond the scope of that >> which is “scientifically provable”. >> >> >> >> Kind regards, >> >> >> >> John McConnell >> >> Home: 407-857-2004 >> >> Cell: 407-867-2192 >> >> Email: jlmcconn...@bellsouth.net >> >> >> >> *From:* Henry Gurr [mailto:henrysg...@gmail.com <henrysg...@gmail.com>] >> *Sent:* Sunday, March 27, 2016 7:54 PM >> *To:* Nick Summerhayes >> *Cc:* John Carl; John McConnell; moq_disc...@moqtalk.org; Anthony; >> Antonio Italy; Andre Broersen; skut...@online.no >> *Subject:* Re: What's wrong with "a personal God"? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> To Nick, John M, John Carl, Andre, Antonio, Anthony & MOQ Discuss. >> >> >> >> >> >> John Carl said " ... but on the other hand, without an account of the >> personal, all science; all modern education, flounders in such abyssi as >> "mind/body" and "Self/Other" logical problems." >> >> >> >> Concerning this, I can see how some "thinkers", could start with trying to >> make an account of the personal, and get totally lost in "mind/body" and >> "Self/Other" logical problems." >> >> >> >> Partly because they don't have or understand band have heads full of evil >> dualisms!! . >> >> ******** >> >> >> >> According to Owen Barfield, there has been an evolution of consciousness, >> which starts of NO awareness of self (time of *Homer's Odyssey* & *Greek* >> mythology, to our present day self awareness, which we have because we >> have what we call consciousness. >> >> >> >> Of course, what we call a person, including what we call our self, must >> have a corresponding evolution: >> >> >> >> So I agree with ", *Personality is a story - a process [of development] >> in time.*" This story is probably written out, by a wide collection of >> various authors. However such stories will be VERY lacking unless they >> include the orientation of both of Pirsig's books, which I'll bet hasn't >> happened. >> >> >> >> But some authors might have done this: So challenge: Please tell all of >> us, the best "story", you are aware of. >> >> >> >> Both of Pirsig's books, might be a good way to make a *basis* for many >> persons' " notion of a >> >> “Personal God” + >> >> Why can’t God choose to be “personal”? + >> >> What is the affirmation of a “personal God” + >> >> How can there be a “limitation” or “definition” of God? >> >> >> >> To me, outside what these persons tell us, there is no way to know if any >> of this is "true", or scientifically provable. >> >> >> >> Henry Gurr >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 5:18 PM, Nick Summerhayes <n...@headway.co.nz> >> wrote: >> >> Hello All, >> >> >> >> Are we living in a time of ‘imPersonalism’ ?! >> >> >> >> I did identify with ‘The person is rooted in history but the now is >> always a choice. ‘ >> >> >> >> Kind Regards >> >> >> >> Nick >> >> >> >> *From:* John Carl [mailto:ridgecoy...@gmail.com] >> *Sent:* Thursday, 24 March 2016 6:53 a.m. >> *To:* John McConnell; moq_disc...@moqtalk.org >> *Cc:* Anthony; Henry Gurr; Antonio Italy; Andre Broersen; >> skut...@online.no; Nick Summerhayes >> *Subject:* Re: What's wrong with "a personal God"? >> >> >> >> John, I brought up the issue of Personalism a while back in MD, and >> honestly, before we get into what you mean by "God", I think we ought to >> talk about what we mean by "Personal". I got interested in the discussion >> of Personalism in the general way through reading Auxier's commentary on >> James's Personalism, which he (James) largely derived from Bowden Parker >> Bowne, if Auxier's correct (and he usually is ;) It's a fascinating >> philosophical discussion and one that modernist-analytic philosophy (SOM) >> tends to ignore, being that it is a form of Idealism and god knows who we >> let in if we open THAT door.... >> >> but on the other hand, without an account of the personal, all science; >> all modern education, flounders in such abyssi as "mind/body" and >> "Self/Other" logical problems. >> >> >> before we can personalize God, God must personalize us, or we have no >> basis for standing. I believe this can be a rational process, but it MUST >> be a process. That is, Personality is a story - a process in time. The >> god of the bible is certainly that, first and foremost - IAM he that knew >> your fathers, that brought you out of the land of bondage, etc. The person >> is rooted in history but the now is always a choice. >> >> Thanks for continuing the conversation, >> >> John >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 12:16 PM, John McConnell < >> jlmcconn...@bellsouth.net> wrote: >> >> Friends, >> >> In a number of sources which otherwise affirm a spiritual reality or a >> concept analogous to the way Christians conceive of God, most are vehement >> in their denial a “personal God”, which most equate with an >> “anthropomorphic” or “sectarian” God. Although such may often be the case, >> why, on the face of it, do scholars reject the notion of a “personal God”? >> Why can’t God choose to be “personal”? Why is the affirmation of a >> “personal God” considered by MOQ fundamentalists to be a “limitation” or >> “definition” of God? How does being “personal” (not “personified”) violate >> God’s the attributes of ineffable, indefinable, etc., ascribed to Dynamic >> Quality? What could be less “effable” and “definable” and “limited” than >> the pure Essence of Being of Thomas Aquinas? I’m really puzzled by this. >> Can you help? >> >> Many thanks, >> >> >> >> John McConnell >> >> Home: 407-857-2004 >> >> Cell: 407-867-2192 >> >> Email: jlmcconn...@bellsouth.net >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> "finite players >> play within boundaries. >> >> Infinite players >> play *with* boundaries." >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> "finite players >> play within boundaries. >> >> Infinite players >> play *with* boundaries." >> > > > > -- > "finite players > play within boundaries. > Infinite players > play *with* boundaries." > 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
