[MD] moq thought experiement 1.

[Heather Perella]

--- On Fri, 6/27/08, Christoffer Ivarsson <IvarssonChristoffer at hotmail.com> wrote:

> From: Christoffer Ivarsson <IvarssonChristoffer at hotmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [MD] moq thought experiement 1.
> To: moq_discuss at lists.moqtalk.org
> Date: Friday, June 27, 2008, 9:16 PM
> > squonk:
> > I take the view that a Carbon atom experiences DQ as a
> mystical experience 
> > which is in its >own way comparable to
> that?experienced by people: Lila 
> > explores how it is that we >experience DQ
> differently, DQ doesn't evolve 
> > (DQ simply is, one can't have more or less of
> >it) it is the static 
> > filters?which evolve, so they can experience DQ with
> different 
> > (increasing) >intensity.
> > A Carbon atom is a static structure which experiences
> DQ in its own way - 
> > it is its own >filter for DQ.
> >
> > As such, it may be possible to rank DQ events as
> experienced by static 
> > filters because it >could be argued that more
> evolved filters experience 
> > DQ more intensly.
> 
> [Chris]
> I must say I wholeheartedly agree with this! And so it
> naturally follows 
> that the theoretical übermench is one that is more evolved
> in the aspect of 
> being able to see more pure Quality (DQ) and are not tied
> down by the static 
> patterns as much.


SA:  Chris, sorry, I have no idea what "ubermench" is.  So, I feel you said something here, but I'm missing it.  I do agree with Squonk on this point.  Maybe we ought to forget the vats, but I'll be going back probably later today to reply to Squonk's post to me on these vats and brains and stuff.


campin',
hmmm, will it rain,
SA