Hi,
I think the issue is much clearer. Thanks. Rick had a couple of minor
disagreements I thought you might be interested in seeing. But I was
wondering if you had thoughts about his bat example at the end of the email.
BOEREE
He is right in a sense -- but it isn't really that important! Of course,
once we are talking about things, they have already become something other
than it was!
The only fully accurate response to all this is... silence! But how fun
would that be?
RICK:
I'm going to disagree here and propose that another 'fully accurate'
response is to recognize that our 'explanations' are not what they purport
to explain. It only with respect to this caveat that we can honestly
measure the value of various (and often competing) truths.
BOEREE:
We have to recognize that we are only "indicating" ultimate realities.
RICK:
Exactly.... But didn't he just say that this isn't really important?
BOEREE:
My perspective is that the whole universe is qualities (or, more precisely,
to satisfy Rick, the potentials for
qualities-as-we-actually-experience-them...).
RICK:
I wholeheartedly concur. And dare I say that not only am I satisfied, but
I've seldom heard it said better. Bravo sir.
BOEREE
...It is similar to Spinoza's idea of double-aspectism: Sure, we can
measure wave lengths -- but it is the quality of the sound (or light) that
is fundamental, that defines the sound. The measured wavelength is an extra
characteristic of the sound.
RICK
I agree with the notion that the wavelength is 'worn' by the quality (so
to speak--- or an extra characteristic as he puts it). But this doesn't
really get us anywhere with respect to the tree in the woods. When the tree
falls, a quality is there for sure... but the issue is whether it's properly
called 'sound quality' before it's sampled by an observer that interprets it
as sound.
For lack of a better example of my point... Imagine walking through the
infamous forest when a bat sweeps down from the trees and screeches at you.
The quality to you will be 'sound quality' because you interpret it as such.
However, to the bat, it's more like 'sonar/radar quality'. The quality that
we perceive as sound is perceived by the bat as distance. Same air wave,
totally different significance.
it's all good,
rick
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:47 BST