From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Tue Feb 24 2004 - 20:57:01 GMT
Platt
So close to home you can no longer see the wonder!?
Think again, you read some lines of black in a book,
from a printers, from some ideas written by a dead man,
about how light travels through space, and you understand
something new about the cosmos, if you cannot see any leaping
going on here you are definately missing something!
regards
David M -someone in the UK, using English on a PC,
you have never seen, or met, talking about a dead scientist
and messing with our views of everything and by a miracle
we can understand each other sometimes.
PS New idea. Is quality in your head? We perceive things.
We use concepts and sensations. But we do not think
of the world as in our heads, we do not experience
the world as in our heads, but it goes away when we shut our eyes.
Maybe, visual perception is more like touching. When a photon enters
the eye from the sun -if you look directly, the wave function stretches from
the sun to my eye,
it collapses on my eye, for a moment there is a wave function stretched out
between us,
we make contact and the wave function collapses, the potential connection
between the sun
and me is realised, I have touched the sun, right out there in the sky.
If I was not here that wave function would be realised differently, I
therefore change
the emissions of the sun. This connection makes perception possible.
Sounds good or mad?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Platt Holden" <pholden@sc.rr.com>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 1:02 PM
Subject: Re: MD MOQ and Islam
> David M,
>
> > Platt
> >
> > My point is that there is a difference between
> > reading,say, a mathematical proof and understanding
> > it. Understanding goes beyond readin the words out
> > or just repeating them. Or to understand say relativity theory
> > one has to really discover its meaning as much as Einstein did
> > originally. Luckily, good books on the subject make the
> > sudden non-dualistic leap of understanding easier for us than
> > Einstein.
>
> I don't understand why understanding is a "non-dualistic" leap. Seems to
> me understanding depends on patterns, and patterns require a dualistic
> inside/outside to become a pattern at all. There is mystic understanding,
> of course, which bypasses patterns. But I don't think understanding
> Einstein requires some mystic experience. Where have I go wrong?
>
> Thanks,
> Platt
>
>
>
> 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
>
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 : Tue Feb 24 2004 - 21:03:53 GMT