[MD] Real or Unreal?

[Carl Thames]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Andre Broersen" <andrebroersen at gmail.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Saturday, November 21, 2009 9:16 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] British Emergentism


> Platt to Andre:
> What I meant by transconceptual is knowledge beyond definition,
> beyond words, "undifferentiated without conceptual distinctions." It 
> refers
> to our meta-sense, a higher form of understanding that recognizes the
> beauty of the Parthenon and the truth of Godel's Theorem, a tuning fork
> in the brain than hums when we stumble upon something of
> exceptionally high quality -- like the MOQ.
>
> Andre:
> Thanks for this Platt. Is this 'knowledge beyond definition'
> similar/the same as our intuitive 'sense' (of the
> aesthetic/harmony/beauty/Quality) or for that matter, non-algorithmic
> understanding?
>
> Cheers
> Andre

Hi all.  I've been having a huge problem getting the list, as my provider 
insists on calling it spam and deleting it.  I may have the problem worked 
out, but no guarantees, so if I disappear again, you'll know why.  I did 
want to respond to this though.  I changed the subject, as it seemed 
appropriate.

Specifically:  The Baghavad Gita says that, "The mind is the slayer of the 
real."  While I like the idea of the mind as a tuning fork, I wonder if the 
resonance isn't a result of an arbitrary processing done by the mind?  This 
would also explain the 'knowledge beyond definition' problem, in that since 
our minds are unique, much like snowflakes (in more ways than one) we also 
perceive differently.  Those differences manifest much like the 
superposition of quantum physics, I think.  Once we perceive something as 
having quality, we establish that quality while eliminating anything about 
it that doens't have it.

This feels too obtuse even to me, but it "feels" right.  Comments?