[MD] Patterns s/o or relationship???

[X Acto]

Marsha:
I just read a book by a Nobel prize winning physicist, and he 
certainly made it sound like they were close to having reality by the 
TiTs. Did you listen to that BBC IOT program?  That discussion gave 
the impression physicists weren't sure of anything.  Maybe neither of 
us are correct, or we're both correct, or maybe we are both correct 
and incorrect,,, yes, no and all of the above.

Ron:
Physicists aren't really sure of anything, except that their predictions match
observable phenomena or they do not, or sometimes do and sometimes do not
the point is that they assume entityship for purposes of mathematical calculation.
I don't know of any physicist still alive that still thinks of atoms and subatomic 
particles as objects, I recently read a book by steven weinburg 
called dreams of a final theory where he complained that positivism
was still rampant in physics in the 70's and 80's but was falling to the 
wayside.

Marsha:
I certainly don't mind you stepping into the post, not at all.  I was 
trying to point out that in communicating I seem to be unable to 
avoid subject/object language and assumptions.  If you have a 
workable method for doing so, other than silence, please share your secret.

Ron:
I think subject/object language is quite suitable, what else are we going to use?
I think the main idea is to be conscious of essentialist assumptions tied to
the words we use when we begin to rationalize, thats all. I think S/O is a useful
tool but limited, DQ/SQ helps to cover the areas where S/O misses, but to
assume DQ/SQ is the fundemental division of reality is making the same
error as assuming S/O is the fundemental division of reality when fundemental
reality is immediate expereince in the now.
-Ron





________________________________
From: MarshaV <marshalz at charter.net>
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Sent: Tuesday, May 5, 2009 3:00:22 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Patterns s/o or relationship???



I just read a book by a Nobel prize winning physicist, and he 
certainly made it sound like they were close to having reality by the 
TiTs. Did you listen to that BBC IOT program?  That discussion gave 
the impression physicists weren't sure of anything.  Maybe neither of 
us are correct, or we're both correct, or maybe we are both correct 
and incorrect,,, yes, no and all of the above.

I certainly don't mind you stepping into the post, not at all.  I was 
trying to point out that in communicating I seem to be unable to 
avoid subject/object language and assumptions.  If you have a 
workable method for doing so, other than silence, please share your secret.

MINDWALK is wonderful!!!  I'll send you a dvd backup of the movie if 
you'd like one.


Marsha



At 02:30 PM 5/5/2009, you wrote:
>Marsha,
>I know you like to think of most physicsts as being stuck in the 1930's
>but most of the physicists who still thought in terms of objects are
>either dead or retired.
>I know you and Platt were just communicating, sorry for stepping in,
>I just thought that u-tube link was terribly interesting.
>-Ron
>
>
>
>
>
>________________________________
>From: MarshaV <marshalz at charter.net>
>To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>Sent: Tuesday, May 5, 2009 2:19:00 PM
>Subject: Re: [MD] Patterns s/o or relationship???
>
>
>Ron,
>
>I agree with you.  It's impossible to find the words, and why
>understanding the nature of these patterns (word-labels) is
>........    There is no common assumption.  At their most
>understandable they're relationship, but in the end they are so much
>dust in the wind.  If you want to be the hammerer on top, be my
>guest.  A hammer is not as elegant as an X Acto Knife.  I was just
>trying to communicate with Platt.
>
>As far SOL being obsolete for MOQ'ers, I was thinking of yet-to-be
>MOQ'ers.  And Earth to Ron, many physicists do not know other than
>s/o with lots of space.
>
>
>Marsha
>
>
>
>
>
>At 01:43 PM 5/5/2009, you wrote:
> >Platt, Marsha,
> >  Basically that is what she is saying only she uses the term relationship
> >which is commonly understood as interaction between objects, but, she
> >already states that what we assume as objects are actually greater sets
> >of relationships, relationships of relationships or a better word for what
> >she is describing is value.
> >
> >As I keep hammering on, common assumptions about common terms
> >in our culture is what creates philosophical paradox , the failure
> >of rationalism. Our language is based on the grammatic predication
> >of subjects and objects. So even when we hear the term relationships
> >we automatically conceptualize the interaction of objects and have 
> difficulty
> >even forming concepts about entityless abstractions. The same goes 
> for value,
> >The terms "value" and "relationship" are almost meaningless without
> >the conventional conception of objects.
> >Physicists have understood the inherent emptiness of reality for the past
> >60-70 yrs but has yet to percolate to the public.
> >This is why SOL is redundant and obsolete, as MoQists
> >we already know this, physicists already know this.
> >Pirsig uses the lingual distinction of Dq/Sq just to avoid
> >essentialism in conception.
> >
> >-Ron
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >________________________________
> >From: "plattholden at gmail.com" <plattholden at gmail.com>
> >To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> >Sent: Tuesday, May 5, 2009 7:16:19 AM
> >Subject: Re: [MD] Patterns s/o or relationship???
> >
> >On 5 May 2009 at 6:56, MarshaV wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Are all physicist as enlightened as this one???
> > >
> > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRduOpj1R7c&feature=related
> > >
> > >
> > > 4:05 minutes
> >
> >Marsha,
> >
> >Don't you think this physicist would be more enlightened if she had
> >acknowledged the role of values in the structure of the universe?
> >Emphasizing relationships and interconnections as she does strikes me as
> >assuming an S/O premise.
> >
> >Thanks for the link.
> >
> >Platt
> >
> >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/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >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/
>
>.
>_____________
>
>Shoot for the moon.  Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars.........
>.
>.
>
>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/
>
>
>
>
>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/

.
_____________

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

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/