Hi Kevin
>> [...] there *is* a real ball and in our reality the ball does fall to the
>> ground. You can't just ignore that. That's *not* the same thing as
>> saying we're subjective minds observing an objective reality.
>
> It may or may not be the same thing. It all depends on perspective.
> Experiencing the ball, say by catching it, is not the same thing as
> remembering the experience. However, according to science both
> experiences evoke identical physical changes in the brain. From the
> perspective of the electro-chemical processes in the brain there is no
> difference between catching the ball and remembering catching the
> ball. And I suppose it's this phenomenon, the ability of the brain to
> "create reality," that's behind the question, "what's missing?"
To an idealist, such reasoning may be convincing, but the MoQ recognizes both
the reality of the ball and the reality of the feeling when catching the ball.
But no, that was not the original question behind the thread. It was about what
was missing in old (what Bo think is pre-intellectual level) texts.
> In my opinion, what's missing in the MoQ is a caveat to all comers
> that the Metaphysics of Quality is not reality.
>
> On the other hand maps of reality are good and necessary things.
> And the better the map the better its usefulness.
>
> My problem with the MoQ map is that it places intellect at the top of
> the value hierarchy as if to say individual human existence is the
> most valuable form of existence.
>
> In my opinion individual human existence is an oxymoron. And it's
> not real.
Not real? Could you elaborate on that one?
Magnus
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/
