[MD] The Quest for Quality

[MarshaV]

At 02:22 PM 9/17/2008, you wrote:

>[Marsha]:
>>What does "a fascinating demonstration of dimensional
>>relativism that showed the limitations of human perspective."
>>  mean???   Are you somehow explaining to us a perspective that is 
>> outside "the limitations of human
> > perspective"?????????
>
>[Magnus]:
>>I stopped to think once or twice about that too. Personally, I 
>>think it's just his fancy way of saying that
>>he was surprised to know how small an atom is, and how small the 
>>atom's nucleus is.
>
>I guess I should have been clearer in explaining my reaction to 'Moonwalk'.
>The overall thrust of this production was to relate the quantum and 
>macro universes to man's (normal) view of reality -- in other words, 
>to demonstrate the "flexibility of perspective".  By projecting 
>these realms as a variable, and visually shifting the locus of 
>awareness back and forth, we understand that our experience of the 
>world lies midway between the bundles of energy that make up the 
>atoms and the galactic bodies that comprise the Milky Way.

Greetings Ham,

I suggest you watch the movie 'Mindwalk' again, specifically 
listening to the information presented by the physicist.  She talks 
about everything being connected to everything, and the need for a 
NEW world-view.


>I think the visual technology, together with the physicist's 
>commentary, is both mind-gripping and intellectually 
>enlightening.  The video would be ideal as a classroom tool, 
>particularly for science teachers.  My only complaint, from a 
>philosophical perspective, is that the viewer comes away with an 
>energy-based concept of reality.  While this is of course the 
>objectivist viewpoint of Science, a philosopher might have 
>documented it differently.
>
>Appreciate your continuing interest in "Ham's views", and hope that 
>the above explanation is more comprehensible.


At 06:09 PM 9/16/2008, you wrote:
"But it is unreasonable by Occam's razor, or any other logical 
principle, to assume that ultimate reality, the primary source itself 
(what I call Essence), is multiplistic and subject to a beginning, an 
end, or the fluctuations between.  Religion, mysticism, and 
philosophy have all posited a unitary, immutable Creator as the 
eternal source.  And I do not have the temerity to challenge that 
concept, even if Mr. Pirsig doesn't acknowledge a creator and happens 
to think DQ is something that "hits" him."

It sounds like you are accusing RMP of temerity for not acknowledging 
a "creator".  I accused you of arrogance for thinking you can define 
and confine things outside your ability to know.  The 'primary 
source' 'creator', and 'purpose' that you insist upon are a mere 
conception in the minds of you and others like you.

I hope a second viewing of Mindwalk will open your mind to new possibilities.


Marsha






.
.

Shoot for the moon.  Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars.........
.
.