Ham, MITMOAT, man is the measure of all things. I felt it was a simplistic vehicle to understand quantum theory For the unintiated but nesteled in there was the idea of we cannot prove that we exist independent of Reality and gave an easy to understand reason why this is theorized. I have to admit I used it as Sort a litmus test to see where you stood on essentialism, I wanted to see if you would connect To the spiritualized resolve of the production. To get off the subject for a second I feel that there Is a lot of conjecture in quantum theory because of the "disapearing " particals that seem to pop Out and in of reality and are percieved to be in two places at once. I feel this is due to the quantum String theory and what they are percieving is actually space being warped on a atomic level, that is the effect of Atoms(matter) moving through space(quantum string loops). Back to essentialism ,all of it seems to rest on the process of negation and grounding on the fact That we are certain of one thing, that we are aware. To go beyond this suggests spiritualism. And your are not for that as I gather. The more I understand the more I see you just about have this Baby cinched air tight, the problem is in conveying in simplier terms this Idea. It's so easy to Slide off track of exactly where you are going. Dancing with Hegel certainly gives the wrong Impression of your destination. Case made the comment that Essentialism seems to be pulled from thin Air but I see you are pulling it from the fact of being aware and rationally deducing from there Using negation and in the volley of negation value emerges. I could be wrong. Thanks Ham
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ham Priday Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2007 2:28 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [MD] Essentialism Hello Ron -- > Ham, > Was watching this movie last night, > http://video.google.com/videoplay? docid=8655881191636417153&q=what+the+bleep > and coincidently it applies directly to our discussions, a must for > those interested in quantum theory. > A very interesting documentary. Warning it has an argument for > MITMOAT. Thanks for the reference to this entertaining psycho-documentary. I watched a good portion of it in segments, not realizing that it ran an hour and 49 minutes! I was also surprised that they chose Marlee Matlin (a deaf mute actress) to portray the "female pilgrim" in the film. While I can understand why quantum theorists would be interested, the scientists guiding us through this highly animated presentation sounded more confused than the dysfunctional characters. There was no moral or spiritual praxis offered, except that we should (somehow) disengage ourselves from our emotions and merge with the "unity of Consciousness", a mystical idea that doesn't square with the position of scientists I've known. Also, if emotional feelings (i.e., values) are responsible for the continuity of our experience, as the video graphically demonstrates, how does shedding them make us wiser and afford us greater control over our lives? I didn't follow the thread on MITMOAT, so I'm ignorant as to what this acronym stands for. As far as quantum physics is concerned, I recall one physicist saying that quantum theory means "open to possibility". I don't know whether that's creation "by accident" or "by design", but in either case it doesn't provide a very cogent ontology. Nor does explaining "thoughts" as electro-chemical changes give us a better handle on epistemology. I don't deny that consciousness and memory are "wired into" the central nervous system; it's the "being" component of "being-aware". But, just as the image on your TV screen involves the wiring of circuit boards in your television chassis, it's the image that you watch, not the electrons flowing through the circuits and microchips. Neurons and receptor cells are secondary to value-awareness, and would not exist except for awareness. Despite the fascinating technical effects, I came away feeling that I hadn't really learned anything from this presentation, and wonder what its creators had in mind. Was there a new philosophical "message" here that I missed, or did the creators simpy want to produce an art film in the sci-fi genre? I'd like to hear what you got out of it, Ron, and how you see its relation to our discussion. Essentially yours, Ham 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
