[MD] MoQ as religion

[Heather Perella]

Hello,

> Hi SA, I see David has responded (I'll mention that
> later) ...
> 
> You asked what I was responding to ..
> You said ..
> "the way I understand science, science does not
> recognize 'thought'
> existing, therefore, the limits of rational thought
> belongs in the
> field of philosophy, not science.  In science, it is
> just hormones and
> atoms, etc... that are here."
> 
> I was pointing out that's a ludicrously narrow view
> of science and scientists.
> 
> Of course science and scientists recognise "thought"
> as existing, as
> being there, etc. It / they just recognise it as a
> hard problem to
> explain from a traditional, classical scientific
> pertspective. And it
> / they do make many attempts to explain (in
> scientific ways) Dennett,
> Chalmers and others are getting very close with very
> "scientific"
> approaches. (see Matt's current threads too) The
> brain vs mind duality
> is a myth, answered by MoQ monism.
    Repeat after me.
> Theoretical physics (science) IS actual metaphysics
> (philosophy).
> Drawing artificial lines and demarcations around
> "fields of thought"
> is simply applying a human static pattern.

     I understand what you are saying here, and I
agree to a point.  When I look at what a scientist
does and what a philosopher does, I notice a different
angle in their approach to the same thing that latter
being the universe.  Now with all of these different
fields of thought (I agree scientists use thought)
their approach is unique unto themselves.  In another
way of thinking about this, the psychriatrist is
another kind of philosopher which is another kind of
shaman.  The shaman may have been the more complete
human being out of these three.  Why?  The shaman
recognized all that came into contact with human
experience and gave explanations, as well as, renewed
the society, their biology, and the earth itself was
tied to their ceremonies.  After saying all of this I
do recognize your jolt of my mind back into the MOQ
and I thank you.  The MOQ is well aware of not just
old shamantic ways, but is here and now fitting into a
culture and explaining a culture and world mindset
that has become diversified into so many paths that
the generalized notions of the shaman was dearly
missing.  MOQ to the rescue!  Or in this case it may
well be Arlo weed picking my mind getting some of
those roots out of there so the garden will grow well
this spring.  Thanks Arlo! 
 
> David said to you ..
> But to me 'merge' is a slippery word as it can be
> confused with simple
> addition and dynamic quality cannot be added to
> anything. It's already
> there to begin with.
> 
> I say - Absolutely - this is my point about naive
> views of "science".
> Few things are simply "additive" analytical /
> reductionist arguments
> (like Squonk's) have very limited applicability.
> (Dynamic) Quality
> highlights this two way ineffability of cause and
> effect - things are
> "emergent" with the dynamic interactions - not
> simply caused-by or
> made-from atomic components.
  
     You may well have seen my response to this. 
Thanks

SA



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com