From: Joe (jhmau@sbcglobal.net)
Date: Wed Apr 21 2004 - 20:22:47 BST
On 20 April 2004 12:58 AM Mark writes:
Mark:
Coherence is high aesthetic - the more beautiful the theory, the better it
'fits' experimental data - but the aesthetic comes first. Always.
Hi Mark, David M, and all,
joe: thanks, Mark, for your responses to my questions. "Am i catching your
drift?" is repeated. I am sorry for being obtuse. My excuse is that
conjecture and obscurity may be a part of mystical exploration. One aspect
of coherence deals with mystical dq. "Coherence is high aesthetic."
A while ago someone posted a link to Jame's "The Bicameral Mind". I skimmed
through it, and one conment stuck. I don't remember has words but IMO the
gist was: a good theory is wrong in some particulars, otherwise questions
are stifled. I don't like Rorty's pragmatism.
IMO Dq is mystical evolution. Evolution has patterned four levels. I want
to talk about David M's example of the football Goaaaaaal, in terms of
speed. Intellect is slow. Learning to use a clutch at first is
painstaking. Identifying relationships is faster. Jumping to block the
defender is fastest than a speeding bullet. Mystical dq loses speed through
the levels on the way up. Why? IMO there are differences in speed of
'awareness'. Coherence has a movable throttle!, or maybe there are a lot of
crashes?
Joe
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 Apr 21 2004 - 20:21:21 BST