[MD] Essentialism

[Ron Kulp]

Ham,
MITMOAT, man is the measure of all things. I felt it was a simplistic
vehicle to understand quantum theory
For the unintiated  but nesteled in there was the idea of we cannot
prove that we exist independent of
Reality and gave an easy to understand reason why this is theorized. I
have to admit I used it as
Sort a litmus test to see where you stood on essentialism, I wanted to
see if you would connect
To the spiritualized resolve of the production. To get off the subject
for a second I feel that there
Is a lot of conjecture in quantum theory because of the "disapearing "
particals that seem to pop
Out and in of reality and are percieved to be in two places at once. I
feel this is due to the quantum
String theory and what they are percieving is actually space being
warped on a atomic level, that is 
the effect of Atoms(matter) moving through space(quantum string loops). 
Back to essentialism ,all of it seems to rest on the process of negation
and grounding on the fact
That we are certain of one thing, that we are aware. To go beyond this
suggests spiritualism.
And your are not for that as I gather. The more I understand the more I
see you just about have this
Baby cinched air tight, the problem is in conveying in simplier terms
this Idea. It's so easy to
Slide off track of exactly where you are going. Dancing with Hegel
certainly gives the wrong
Impression of your destination. 
Case made the comment that Essentialism seems to be pulled from thin
Air but I see you are pulling it from the fact of being aware and
rationally deducing from there
Using negation and in the volley of negation value emerges.
I could be wrong.
Thanks Ham

-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of Ham Priday
Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2007 2:28 AM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] Essentialism


Hello Ron --


> Ham,
> Was watching this movie last night,
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?
docid=8655881191636417153&q=what+the+bleep
> and coincidently it applies directly to our discussions, a must for 
> those interested in quantum theory.
> A very interesting documentary. Warning it has an argument for 
> MITMOAT.

Thanks for the reference to this entertaining psycho-documentary.  I
watched a good portion of it in segments, not realizing that it ran an
hour and 49 minutes!  I was also surprised that they chose Marlee Matlin
(a deaf mute
actress) to portray the "female pilgrim" in the film.  While I can
understand why quantum theorists would be interested, the scientists
guiding us through this highly animated presentation sounded more
confused than the dysfunctional characters. There was no moral or
spiritual praxis offered, except that we should (somehow) disengage
ourselves from our emotions and merge with the "unity of Consciousness",
a mystical idea that doesn't square with the position of scientists I've
known.  Also, if emotional feelings (i.e., values) are responsible for
the continuity of our experience, as the video graphically demonstrates,
how does shedding them make us wiser and afford us greater control over
our lives?

I didn't follow the thread on MITMOAT, so I'm ignorant as to what this
acronym stands for.  As far as quantum physics is concerned, I recall
one physicist saying that quantum theory means "open to possibility".  I
don't know whether that's creation "by accident" or "by design", but in
either case it doesn't provide a very cogent ontology.  Nor does
explaining "thoughts" as electro-chemical changes give us a better
handle on epistemology.  I don't deny that consciousness and memory are
"wired into"
the central nervous system; it's the "being" component of "being-aware".
But, just as the image on your TV screen involves the wiring of circuit
boards in your television chassis, it's the image that you watch, not
the electrons flowing through the circuits and microchips.  Neurons and
receptor cells are secondary to value-awareness, and would not exist
except for awareness.

Despite the fascinating technical effects, I came away feeling that I
hadn't really learned anything from this presentation, and wonder what
its creators had in mind.  Was there a new philosophical "message" here
that I missed, or did the creators simpy want to produce an art film in
the sci-fi genre?

I'd like to hear what you got out of it, Ron, and how you see its
relation to our discussion.

Essentially yours,
Ham


moq_discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/