[MD] The Word is Not the Thing

Tue Sep 15 10:44:14 PDT 2009

Marsha,
I haven't been talking about Biocentricism lately, but I picture it as
encapsulating all you describe. Here see how much the MoQ -tweaked version
you agree with:

   1. What we perceive as reality is a process that involves
   our consciousness. An "external" reality, if it existed, would by definition
   have to exist in space. But this is meaningless, because space and time are
   not absolute realities but rather tools of the human and animal mind.
   2. Our external and internal perceptions are inextricably intertwined.
   They are different sides of the same coin and cannot be divorced from one
   another.
   3. The behavior of subatomic particles, indeed all particles and objects,
   is inextricably linked to the presence of an observer. Without the presence
   of a conscious observer, they at best exist in an undetermined state
   of probability waves.
   4. Without consciousness, "matter" dwells in an undetermined state
   of probability. Any universe that could have preceded consciousness only
   existed in a probability-state.
   5.  The universe is fine-tuned for mind-life, which makes perfect sense
   as mind-life creates the universe, not the other way around. The "universe"
   is simply the complete spatio-temporal logic of the self.
   6. Time does not have a real existence outside of animal-sense
   perception. It is the process by which we perceive changes in the universe.
   7. Space, like time, is not an object or a thing. Space is another form
   of our animal understanding and does not have an independent reality. We
   carry space and time around with us like turtles with shells. Thus, there is
   no absolute self-existing matrix in which physical events occur independent
   of life.

On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 12:32 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:

> Hi Platt,
>
> I want to live in the Quantum world.  To me it is the most exciting,
> MoQ-like place to be.  And it is 'the Mystery' that is most real to me.
> When a physicist says  the equation to determine particle spin represents
> some-thing "real", I want to bombard him with thrown shoes. I seem to be
> very prejudice and want to toss all talk of William James aside, and move
> on
> to the cutting edge of Quantum Theory and the Philosophy of Science.  Maybe
> there is the proper place for the MoQ to be, as a bridge between Eastern
> Wisdom and Western Knowledge: Quantum Theory and its relationship with the
> Philosophy of Science, and its relationship to Buddhism.
>
> Consciousness is another mysterious frontier where a bridge between East
> and
> West is needed. Maybe this is what Krimel was trying to explain. -  I keep
> wanting to respond to Ham concerning 'awareness'.  Awareness is the most
> real thing I experience, but I haven't the foggiest thing to say about it
> that doesn't degrade into babble.  I know awareness most from meditation,
> but not nearly with the required dedication to speak about it. I want to
> say
> something like awareness is where Quality hangs out, and those
> non-affirming-negative I've grown fond of.
>
> You are kind, generous and beautiful, and I love you. You always
> appropriately bring my head down from the clouds and back to art.
>
>
> Marsha
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
> [mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of
> plattholden at gmail.com
> Sent: Monday, September 14, 2009 6:40 PM
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Subject: Re: [MD] The Word is Not the Thing
>
> Marsha,
>
> I like your analogy with quantum physics. The more we become familiar
> with the MOQ the more it resonates across the cognitive and aesthetic
> spectrum. Your continuing emphasis on the ineffable spontaneous
> dynamic flux of reality has influenced my own perspective more than
> you know. For that much thanks..
>
> Platt
>
> On 14 Sep 2009 at 17:08, MarshaV wrote:
>
> > Hi Platt,
> >
> > I like this Platt.  I think of the MoQ as all process until it is
> > intellectualized, then it collapses into a subject and object.  Just like
> a
> > photon.  More often than not, you seem correct.
> >
> >
> > Marsha
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
> > [mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of
> > plattholden at gmail.com
> > Sent: Monday, September 14, 2009 12:01 PM
> > To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> > Subject: [MD] The Word is Not the Thing
> >
> > All:
> >
> > The great debate about whether the MOQ belongs to the intellectual level
> > or not may have a rather simple solution. It both belongs to the
> > intellectual
> > level and it doesn't. As a description of reality it's a static
> intellectual
> >
> > pattern. As the central reality it's Dynamic -- beyond words.
> >
> > I've come to this conclusion by reviewing Pirsig's comment in Lila's
> Child
> > to
> > an assertion I made about the MOQ many years ago, namely that "The
> > MOQ is an SOM document based on SOM reasoning." (and by implication
> > belonging to the intellectual level). In note 132 Pirsig wrote:
> >
> > "It employs SOM reasoning the SOM reasoning employs social structures
> > such as courts and journals and learned societies to make itself known.
> > SOM reasoning is not subordinate to these social structures, and the MOQ
> > is not subordinate to the SOM structures it employs. Remember the central
> > reality of the MOQ is not an object or a subject or anything else. It is
> > understood by direct experience only and not by reasoning of any kind.".
> >
> > Or, as my old college textbook on semantics says, "The word is not the
> > thing."  A map is not the territory, a menu is not the food, a pointing
> > finger
> > is not the moon.
> >
> > Obvious? Of course. But I easily forget. I forget the independence of
> > symbols from the experiences symbolized. I fail to remember that the
> > differences between actual and symbolic experience are great. I am not at
> > risk of being killed by watching a movie like "The Longest Day;" I don't
> > feel
> > the cold while reading about the Antarctic.
> >
> > And so it is with the MOQ. It's intellectual pattern contained in ZAMM
> and
>
> > Lila  is the map at the intellectual level.  Dynamic quality experience
> is
> > the
> > territory. Many focus on the former and call it the MOQ. Bo focuses on
> the
>
> > latter and calls it the MOQ. Like the heads and tails of a coin, both are
> > right.
> >
> > Here we battle over interpreting the map. At the same time as we write to
> > express our views, we  engage Dynamic quality.
> >
> > I'm sure others have reached this conclusion before and may have
> > presented it here. For me sometimes  the dawning comes late.
> >
> > As always, I could be wrong.
> >
> > 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/
>