Glen and squad
Glen, i am certainly not about to try and 'cut you down to size' as your
reasoning is very sound. but there are one or two troubling assumptions you
have made that i have attempted to address below.
Glen wrote:
> I would like to make a few cavets in regards to this question. While
matter may
> seem to be dicontinous at the Quantum level, it isn't at the macroscopic
level,
> which was the viewpoint from which the MoQ was written. I think it's
important
> to keep this in mind while discusing this subject. Additionally I think
it's
> important to acknowledge that the only accurate description of phonomena
> occuring at the the sub-atomic level is mathmatics. I think any of us
would be
> hard put to defend the position that we had personally experienced this
level of
> reality........etc
Glen, i am unconvinced that there is no discontinuity of matter at the
macroscopic level. i would say rather that we have learned to ignore the
discontinuity in everyday static quality reality, and that when quantum
level physics is explored, we are no longer afforded that luxury. there are
interesting ways to see how firmly ingrained our static quality agreements
with life are.
someone brought up the fact that we cannot walk thru walls. this is an
interesting metaphor of the discontinuity of matter that is firmly rooted in
SO thinking...i, as subject. cannot walk thru the wall, the object. i can
explain the reason for this MOQically by saying that static latchings have
occurred that need a Dynamic push to overcome. its no longer a matter of
being unable to walk thru walls, but merely a matter of finding a Dynamic
enough way of doing so.
i have been able to walk thru walls in my more Dynamic dreams, for example.
now, someone trapped in SO thinking may say, but the dream wall wasnt real!
but doesnt the MOQ tell us that subjects and objects arent 'real' either? it
seems to me there are reasons (rules) why we cant walk thru walls in static
quality everyday reality, and these rules really have nothing to do with
either the subject or the object, but with the complement that each share.
in the MOQ, subjects and objects have become patterns of value, each having
a complementary Dynamic pattern of value which all share. when this is
recognized, then suddenly, the important thing is the complementary pattern
of value, and the fact that each actuality pattern of value is a microcosm
of that Dynamic complement. David Bohm used a holographic example to
illustrate this idea.
mathematics and language are also patterns of value. there are those who
attempt to use both to explain something that neither can encompass. the
former seems to work better in the quantum world, while the latter serves us
well in static quality everyday life. since i am neither a mathematician nor
a philosopher, i see no reason why the 2 cannot be combined to offer a more
expanded viewpoint of the universe. others who are more knowledgable than
myself may disagree, i am sure.
as far as not experiencing the quantum phenomena, i would put it to you that
it is possible that we are each experiencing it as part of our awareness.
there are Consciousness theories that use quantum state collapse in the
brain to attempt to tie awareness to an ever regenerating series of
collapsing Quantum (Quality) Events which we turn into a series of what
seems to us as continuous experiences.
best wishes,
glove
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:34 BST