Theo Schramm (theoschramm@hotmail.com)
Sun, 14 Jun 1998 04:50:58 +0100
Greetings,
A final word (at least from me)about Magnus' conflation of free will,
non-determinism and sentience. Whilst I agree with what you are trying
to say to an extent Magnus, I must say that you lose a lot in your
expression. To use an analogy you might say that if I am eating Black
Forest Gateau that the flavour is of Black Forest Gateau and that my
insistence upon saying that I can taste cherry, chocolate and cream is a
tautology, and in a sense it is, but what I lose in brevity I gain in
explaination. This is reflected in your fairly recent post in which you
said that it really bugs that most people just stare at you blankly when
you explain the MOQ to them. In my experience people understand the
Quality argument that I present to them very easily, even though they
often reject it. Perhaps you are happy only conversing with like minds?
I am not and what is more I'm convinced that the language is available
to us to achieve recognition without the need to distort it. As I said
in my initial post, we must be clear, concise and accurate if this
project is to get any further. If we start telling intelligent folk that
free will and sentience are the same thing we can only expect, and will
only deserve, blank looks.
In answer to Donny recently you suggested that we are examining the
"first division of reality" in the D/S split and so bringing time into
the equation is not valid. The trouble here is that "first" in the sense
you use it involves a priority IN TIME so you are contradicting
yourself. The other sense of "first" is one of ranking, but in this
sense time can quite happily be brought into the equation with that
initial split and without contradiction. The question is a perfectly
valid one.
Sorry to push this but clarity is of great importance to me and when I
see the fog descend I get very worried. If it really bugs you that
people stare at you blankly, ask yourself (and them) why.
Bo, I am mightily (and then some) impressed by your SOM as intellect of
MOQ idea and like Ken feel myself dragged closer and closer to it. I
hope we get the chance in the program to explore this more fully at some
point but for now I invite Jonathan to comment upon it as I think it
helps clarify why I disagree that Quality always requires an observer
and an observed for its occurence.
I wanted to make a few more points, especially to Donny and Ken, but am
afraid time is very short for the next few days. My Psion and a snatched
few moments are the best I can do for now. Sorry.
Horse. I am hoping to see some more of your A and not A interpretation
of the dynamic/static split. I think this of great value to the debate
as I subscribe to your view that the dynamic to static split is a
continuum rather than a rigid dualism. The record you buy sounds really
great, then great, then good, then O.K.There is no sudden great to O.K
event, rather it gradually becomes a static pattern. What is more,
static patterns can become dynamic again just as dynamic patterns can
become static. The distinction is simply a classification to clarify
different forms of Quality for our own understanding, not a either/or
split.(more later).
Theo
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:21 CEST