From: Ron Winchester (phaedruswolff@hotmail.com)
Date: Thu Feb 17 2005 - 20:12:18 GMT
Scott:
I disagree. We know a lot about subatomic activity. What we cannot do is
visualize it. But the mathematics does allow us to make predictions. Of
course the theory may be overthrown and replaced by another, but the
predictive ability we have will not go away, same with relativity
replacing Newton. NASA still uses Newtonian physics to direct its
spacecraft.
Hi Scott,
The thing is, we can't predict the movements of electrons. It is more a
shell game we are playing with the subatomic particles and waves.
Ron said:
Let's just say that Quantum Physics leads us to think a bit closer
toward Eastern philosophy, or what can be termed as spirituality.
Scott:
I agree, but there are many books out there which disagree, so this
statement can be questioned. Is it a case, for example, that we have
read spiritual meanings into QM only because we are inclined to do so
because of prior leanings toward the spiritual? (Also, there is plenty
of spirituality in Western philosophy as well.)
Ron:
I don't see religion and spirituality meaning the same thing.
Ron said:
The difference between enlightenment and the Christian Mystical
Experience is that you know prior to the experience what you are going
to experience when you are looking for the Virgin Mary. An Enlightened
Mystical Experience is something that comes to you from what I would
call 'Within.'
Scott:
I would say that saying "Enlightened Mystical Experience is something
that comes to you from what I would call 'Within.'" is just as
misleading as saying it comes from 'without'. In both cases there is a
SOM presupposition: that something gets experienced, for example,
knowledge of "how the world is".
Ron:
This knowledge simply does not depend on anyone or anything besides
yourself.
Scott continues;
I also question your characterization of "Christian Mystical Experience"
as if it were all visions. Eckhart, the author of the Cloud of
Unknowing, and the contemporary mystic Bernadette Roberts are all
counter-examples. And of course, visions occur in all other traditions
as well.
Ron:
Bernadette Roberts does not stick to the 'Christian' mystical
experience. If you are speaking in terms of Christianity evolving, I do
believe it will, but hasn't yet to accept this idea of 'No-Self'.
Would you not agree?
Ron said:
Thinking of Quantum Soup brings me to some thoughts about 'Emprical Data.'
It seems to me that in most fields, the use of the term 'Empirical Data' is
more of an insult thrown toward the Empiricists, or those who depend too
much on what is considered emprical data.
Scott:
I'm not at all clear on who you think is using 'Empirical Data' as an
insult. Could you give an example?
Ron;
I’ll save this Scott, and see what I can do about finding some examples.
It is mainly in the finance and science journals.
>From: "Scott Roberts" <jse885@localnet.com>
>Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
>Subject: Re: MD Pure experience and the Kantian problematic
>Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 11:58:58 -0700
>
>Ron,
>
>Ron said:
>The word 'Proven' is a gross overstatement, and should be excluded from
>philosophical language. :o)
>
>Scott:
>I agree. Proof only works in mathematics.
>
>As I see it, the nothingness of non-deity Zen is the same as the void,
>nothingness, or 'Quantum Soup.' It is all theory, and as like every theory
>we have had prior, such as Aether have been 'Reconsidered' (as opposed to
>disproven:)
>
>The only compliment of Quantum Physics to Nothingness of Zen is that both
>Quantum Physics and Zen have realized that they do not 'Know' what this
>nothingness consists of. Any knowledge we have is temporary. All we think
>we
>know is that everything came from this Nothingness for lack of a word
>because it cannot be described.
>
>Scott:
>I disagree. We know a lot about subatomic activity. What we cannot do is
>visualize it. But the mathematics does allow us to make predictions. Of
>course the theory may be overthrown and replaced by another, but the
>predictive ability we have will not go away, same with relativity replacing
>Newton. NASA still uses Newtonian physics to direct its spacecraft.
>
>Ron said:
>Let's just say that Quantum Physics leads us to think a bit closer toward
>Eastern philosophy, or what can be termed as spirituality.
>
>Scott:
>I agree, but there are many books out there which disagree, so this
>statement can be questioned. Is it a case, for example, that we have read
>spiritual meanings into QM only because we are inclined to do so because of
>prior leanings toward the spiritual? (Also, there is plenty of spirituality
>in Western philosophy as well.)
>
>Ron said:
>On empirical and SOM, and the MOQ being stuck on SOM in its use of the word
>empirical, is that I see you accepting, or being confused that a Mystic
>Experience is something other than enlightenment as to how the world is,
>that does not come from some 'Out There' field or force.
>
>Scott:
>I think both characterizations of mysticism given here are misleading, and
>subscribe to neither.
>
>Ron said:
>The difference between enlightenment and the Christian Mystical Experience
>is that you know prior to the experience what you are going to experience
>when you are looking for the Virgin Mary. An Enlightened Mystical
>Experience
>is something that comes to you from what I would call 'Within.'
>
>Scott:
>I would say that saying "Enlightened Mystical Experience is something that
>comes to you from what I would call 'Within.'" is just as misleading as
>saying it comes from 'without'. In both cases there is a SOM
>presupposition:
>that something gets experienced, for example, knowledge of "how the world
>is".
>
>I also question your characterization of "Christian Mystical Experience" as
>if it were all visions. Eckhart, the author of the Cloud of Unknowing, and
>the contemporary mystic Bernadette Roberts are all counter-examples. And of
>course, visions occur in all other traditions as well.
>
>Ron said:
>Thinking of Quantum Soup brings me to some thoughts about 'Emprical Data.'
>It seems to me that in most fields, the use of the term 'Empirical Data' is
>more of an insult thrown toward the Empiricists, or those who depend too
>much on what is considered emprical data.
>
>Scott:
>I'm not at all clear on who you think is using 'Empirical Data' as an
>insult. Could you give an example?
>
>- Scott
>
>
>
>MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
>Mail Archives:
>Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
>Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
>MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
>To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
>http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 2.1.5 : Thu Feb 17 2005 - 20:46:54 GMT