[MD] Discrete & Dependent

[Magnus Berg]

Hi again Marsha

>> But in that case, yes, I agree that in the MoQ, there are no 
>> things-in-themselves, i.e. a thing does not exist independently of 
>> other things, only in relationships with other things.
> 
> But isn't it like the moment you interact with phenomenon, like 
> conceptualize this phenomenon, it is no longer the phenomenon, but the 
> static, conceptualized-version, with it's relationships severed, it 
> processes altered.  It seems to me it would be as the difference between 
> dead and alive.

The conceptualized version of a phenomenon is, in my view, an intellectual 
pattern representing the original phenomenon. And yes, the intellectual 
representation is very different from the original, it's so different that it 
refuses any attempts of comparison. Very much dead, I agree.

For example, I'm really looking forward to eating that last piece of blueberry 
pie my fiancee made a few days ago. I remember how yesterday's piece tasted but 
that memory only serves to increase my longing. The only thing I can really do 
is to eat that last piece, and while I'm eating, the phenomenon is very much 
alive. As I'm eating, I don't want to think about anything else, don't want to 
watch TV because that would only distract me from the biological gooood 
experience. But afterwards, it will again be just a dead memory. A 
conceptualized, intellectualized, dead, static pattern.

> I doubt that science ever gets to direct experience of 
> phenomenon without conceptualization.  And this is where science gets 
> defensive and wants to walk away from such a point-of-view.   It's a 
> total lack of humility.  (Such nerve I have!!!)   But we both know there 
> are lots of examples where new theories were ignored because there was 
> so much already invested in the old.

I'm not sure it *never* gets to direct experience. Take for example an old 
fashioned scale used to weigh fish and vegetables on the market place. To use 
such a scale, you put what you want to weigh on one side, and then put the 
counter weights on the other until the sides are balanced. Perhaps not very 
high-tech science, but as the scale does its job, it is experiencing inorganic 
value first hand. It's when we are done and say that the fish weighed 0.5kg that 
we have conceptualized (and killed) the experience.

But you're probably right most of the time. That's how science has come to work. 
A theory is first formulated, and to test it, one must do the observation and 
conceptualize it to verify it against the theory.

> Yes, I agree a pattern only exists in relationship with other patterns 
> of the same level.  Maybe interacting with patterns on other levels too.

Yes, patterns are able to interact with patterns of other levels too, but only 
via the inter-level dependency.

>>> And it doesn't mean that the idea of one independent, falling piano 
>>> is the best point-of-view either.
>>
>> No! Wow, that sparked some ideas. Thanks for rattling my cage. :)
> 
> I think you're making fun of me.  I know only enough to be dangerous, 
> but I think you got my idea.

No Marsha! I was *not* making fun of you. That was a very serious and honest 
thanks for putting your finger on something that I took for granted, but at a 
closer look wasn't that obvious.

Usually when we want to show what a dynamic experience is, we use biological 
tastes, or smells, or perhaps a beautiful scenery passing by when you're out 
jogging. Afterwards, these dynamic experiences are conceptualized and converted 
into dead intellectual static patterns. But intellectual experiences can be 
dynamic too. And that is what you gave me with that comment about the piano.

So, again. Thanks!

> Now here's where I get downright weird.  I do not believe gravity, or a 
> "law of gravity" exists.  There's no phenomenon there, it all 
> conceptual.   Intellectual patterns that are useful.  Have I sent you 
> fleeing?

Huh? No phenomenon? Perhaps you would change your mind if you tried zero-G? Not 
that I have, but that way, you could first hand compare gravity vs. no gravity. 
Just an idea.

>>> We are now strangling in the narrow view.
>>
>> I have a feeling I didn't get the full meaning of that. Would you mind 
>> elaborating?
> 
> 
> It seems to me the intellectual level is being choked by materialism and 
> greed.

Hmm, yes, let's just hope the intellectual level gets the upper hand eventually.

	Magnus