From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Sun Jul 24 2005 - 08:10:17 BST
Hi Platt --
I suggested:
> Meantime, maybe you will provide us with a fuller explanation of your
> "energy field" Force Consciousness.
You replied:
> All in due time. But to peak curiosity (or is it peek?), consciousness
> surrounds the quantum field as evidenced by the act of observation causing
> quantum potentials to become manifest to create our world.
> (Hopefully, Ian will have something to say about that.)
Your syntax is impeccable as always, Platt. It's "peak" (from the French
*apeak*, meaning 'to hold vertically'), and Websters Collegiate definition
is: "to reach a maximum, [as] to cause coming to a peak."
My concern about your theory, though, is its close resemblance to the 4th
level 'floating reservoir' defined by that detested 'I-word' which your
colleagues object to my calling a "collective consciousness". For example,
the description "surrounds the quantum field" applied to Consciousness would
seem to suggest a universal base of some kind that experience draws upon --
hardly the concept of proprietary (individuated) awareness I had outlined in
my post to you.
I wonder if what you really were defining is the "patterning" or design of
the perceived physical universe and its discrete particulars, rather than
Consciousness itself. That, to me, is universal because it has a
correspondence with the rationalized awareness of all individuals. I've not
been unable to explain this Newtonian design as related to any human or
psychic factor -- nor has anyone else, including RMP, for that matter --
hence, simply attribute it to the intelligence of the Designer.
In other words, WHY the laws of physics are the way they are -- why objects
fall rather than rise, why planets circle their suns, why water freezes at
32 degrees, why man thinks with his brain and not his heart -- these
existential realities are not accidents of nature, or we would have chaos
instead of order. They remain mysteries that I suspect no scientist or
philosopher will ever resolve. We can lay out a designer's blueprint for
what we know about the universe as it exists; we can't plot one for a
non-existent universe without resorting to a fictional account such as Harry
Potter's world.
But while the specificity and intricacies of finitude are the challenge of
Science (and of primary concern to the participants here), my interest is
the relation of man's proprietary awareness to the Absolute Source of his
being. I've finally consented to purchasing Steven Kauffman's "Unified
Reality Theory" in paperback, after unsuccessfully trying to download it
from Atlas Bookmasters. His ontology is based on Consciousness as the
primary reality and has much in common with Pirsig's SODV. I intend to read
it from the perspective of my own metaphysical biases, just as I read
Pirsig. (Paul has said he would review it and, based on what you've
revealed about your "energy field" concept of Consciousness, I think you
might also find Kauffman's theory of interest.) If I see that it has any
relevance to the MoQ, I'll report it to the MD gang for their evaluation.
Incidentally, I'll be vacationing for about a week, starting on Wednesday,
so there will be an interruption of a few days in my responses.
Have a good week, Platt,
Ham
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 : Sun Jul 24 2005 - 08:10:25 BST