From: Steve Peterson (peterson.steve@verizon.net)
Date: Wed Nov 19 2003 - 15:49:09 GMT
Hi Nathan,
> If I can paraphrase your position it would be that you postulate that there
> is more to the universe than matter and energy. I make the assumption that
> the universe consists only of matter and energy.
Thanks for attempting to state your understanding of my position--a great
way to move the conversation along.
Though I would indeed say that "there is more to the universe than matter
and energy", I would rather say that matter and energy can both be thought
of as species of value while there is value that is not experienced as
matter and energy as well. For example, the high quality of 2+2=4 over
2+2=42 is not experienced as matter or energy. Another example is defining
life, which you've been discussing. Life cannot be distinguished solely in
terms of measurements concerning matter and energy. The ideas "matter" and
"energy" have no matter or energy, and then don't exist by your assumptions.
I've provided other examples previously.
> In my mindset, there are no ghosts, or spirits or an anthropomorphic God, or
> angels, devils, heaven or hell; there is no morality, no standard of conduct
> that is 'correct' and no reward for the righteous and no punishment for the
> wicked. "What you see is what you got". Life is for a finite period and when
> you die, you disappear as an individual. The flowers and rocks will not miss
> you although your friends and family might.
I agree with all of that. I don't believe in gods or "special powers" or
anything outside of experience.
(I forget who said recently that ESP is a proven scientific fact. I'm
curious about what was meant by that.)
> You, on the other hand, have a different view and reject much of what I
> think is true.
As I said, I don't have a different view in the way that you thought.
Perhaps you could reread my previous posts in that light.
>( I don't mind because I am not 100% sure that I'm right and
> it could very well be that you are correct.) As far as telling you where you
> are wrong, I can't because in part, you may be right. I will agree with what
> I think you believe namely that reason and the dogma of the "Church of
> Reason" is only one way to see the world.
Right. Our discussion is about which way of viewing the world is better:
viewing experience in terms of matter and energy or viewing experience in
terms of value. Note that we can only actually have the conversation if
both of us think that the word "better" has meaning, which of course it
can't under the assumptions you claim to make.
Do you intend to read Lila, or have you had enough of Pirsig? (Technically,
reading both books are prerequisites for this discussion group.)
Thanks,
Steve
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 : Wed Nov 19 2003 - 16:31:46 GMT