From: Nathan Pila (pila@sympatico.ca)
Date: Mon Nov 10 2003 - 02:14:34 GMT
Richard,
I'm sure that I have this all wrong but, .....
Are you saying that only that which can be experienced has high quality? If you are saying that, then what do you say about the concept of sonar or radar? Bats are blind but 'see' through a form of sonar. Their sensory organs are attuned to 'hear' the echoes of the signals they send out.
So, to a bat, sonar has 'high quality' but to a human is exists but is of lower quality.
Where is my error or do I have this right? Or have I discovered a contradiction in the definition of 'quality'?
Nathan
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Loggins
To: moq_discuss@moq.org
Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2003 5:23 PM
Subject: Re: MD string theory
(I sent this earlier but i think it was too big to go thru)
Steve, GJ, Johhny, and finally Nathan,
May I jump in?
Steve, kudos to you and your excellent summary of MOQ to Nathan. Johnny, I agree with your take that on gravity that "It doesn't exist as anything other than a
moral pattern of value, just like matter doesn't exist as anything other than moral pattern of value." The only thing that truly exists in an objective sense is Dynamic Quality. The rest of what we are tricked into thinking is part of objective reality is just a swarm of ideas that have been reified statically by Quality. I think GJ was saying something along these lines, too. All excellent stuff, right on the money. Nathan, I can see that you are still predominated by SOM thinking. 'Tis a pity that you are missing so much from the viewpoint of Quality. I usually try to avoid NOva because it is simply trying to foster the old world view. String theory is just another in a long line of scientific theories that will be ultimately shown wrong. But I digress. You ask specifically "Since we can't imagine 11
dim! ensions, is it fair to say that only 4 dimensions exist and the strings are unreal?" That is correct. 7 of those dimensions is low quality, because if you can't experience it, it doesn't exist. On the other hand, string theory itself is an intellectual pattern and so exists, but the strings themselves only exist to the extent that they have Quality, and the only place they might have Quality is in the theory itself, not in the world of experience. Once you go round and round like this you should see that strings have a very low quality existence, if any at all. This is why I think much of what science is up to is bankrupt. Last night's lunar eclipse was confirmed by my experience, but the scientific prediction of it's coming could either be considered miraculous, or a reifying of expectation in the form of static quality, mediated by Dynamic Quality. And I'm not into miracles. I hope this answers your question statisfactorily.
Rich
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
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 : Mon Nov 10 2003 - 02:15:11 GMT