Response to Bodvar
Your message about the 'quality' element in the universe is interesting. If
you have done any research on what possible qualities constitue the universe
I would like to hear of it.
I have been working on this idea for sometime as well.
I think that the idea of 'quantity' which we associate with measuring things
and trying to work out 'how' things work out ignores the ideas that the
first manner the universe unfolds is via 'qualities' (of the mind or of the
universe - where does external stop and internal begin?). The present Chaos
therory also by passes the idea of quantity. What do you all think?
regards jay vivekananda@btinternet.com
jay
-----Original Message-----
From: Bodvar Skutvik <skutvik@online.no>
To: moq_discuss@moq.org <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Date: 29 November 1998 13:50
Subject: Re: MD Program: morality and the moq.
Ken Clark, Sat, 28 Nov 1998 23:47:42 -0600 writes:
> Squad,
> I have been out of the loop for the better part of a month but have
> lately come across a couple of items of information that may be of
interest
> to the squad.
Hi Ken.
Good to have vital signs from you. For some reason your "essay" on
pain popped up the other day and I read it again. Extremely
interesting. Thank you again!
> In SCIENCE NEWS Oct 31 1998 Vol 154 there appears some research results
> that purport to show that time is not reversible at the deepest level. It
> is also reported that there appears to be a slight difference between the
> behavior of matter and antimatter which the researchers suggest might be
> the reason why the universe contains virtually no antimatter.
Also very interesting.
> On the same page of the newsmagazine it is also reported that research
> results support the idea of a continually expanding universe.
> Taken together with previously built up information, including the COBE
> results showing how the universe got unsmooth this seems to give a
> plausible view of why the universe appears as it does today. Many
questions
> remain including the possibility of the existence of a superweak force
Possibly the Q-force :-)
> and the question of the possibility of many parallel universes but tis
seems to
> me an interesting discussion topic. Increasingly there seems to be a
> concensus of opinion that the universe exhibits all of the characteristics
> of a living entity. I am leaning toward the isea that the basis for
> Pirsig's Quality lies in the universe itself and that Quality as it
affects
> life and humanity is just a by product of the overarching Quality of the
> universe. If this is so then it seems to me that perhaps we should begin
> with universal Quality in mind and recognize that human Quality should fit
> within the overall requirements of universal Quality. I suspect that such
> an approach would alleviate many of the value and morality problems we are
> having when we view the human situation in isolation.
>
> Maybe we will not burn up in the big crunch but turn into slothlike
> creatures as the energy level in the universe expands and falls.
> interesting to me. Ken Clark
"Cosmic" theories I have a peculiar attitude to. I believe it
with half of me, but simultaneously laugh of it. When we two were
little the "creation" was a Biblical thing. In an Encyclopedia from
the thirties which I keep for sentimental reasons (and as a source to
see how far we have come) there is nothing about the origin of the
universe in a scientific sense (even the nuclear explanation for the
solar output isn't known), and that's merely sixty years ago. The
Steady State and the Big Bang cosmology competed with each other
right up to the Sixties. Thirty something years ago!!! With the
exponential rising speed of theorization, how long do you think the
current model will last? If I lived to cash the profit I would gladly
bet you a big sum that in another twenty years some revolutionary
discovery - by the Hubble telescope preferably - has left the BB
obsolete and SS is back again.
Another thing, You seemingly look upon the universe as some-thing
affected by quality as if there's a Q-force like gravitation
affecting matter "at a distance". But the material universe is the
first manifestation of value: Substance, forces, fields, energy, are
all Inorganic Patterns of Value. On this first level the rest of
the"unfinished Q-symphony" rises and there's no more reality to the
ground floor than to the top floor. Perhaps this is what you mean
when you speak about the "overarching Quality of the universe", but
then you go on about "human Quality" that should fit the first, and I
am not sure what you mean.
The top floor is the human quality perspective, and if you mean that
we should aknowledge the immense strength of the construction keeping
us up ...I am all with you. That is the achievement of the MOQ, while
in SOM it was more of a skyhook.
Stay with us Ken
Bodvar
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
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 - 16:02:40 BST