[MD] The Word is Not the Thing

John Carl ridgecoyote at gmail.com
Tue Sep 15 22:46:08 PDT 2009 

Marsha,
The really neat thing I like about Wikipedia is how quickly it evolves.  I
went there this morning and found two quotes on responses to Biocentrism
that I bet you'd like that weren't there a month ago...

 Richard Conn Henry, Professor of Physics and Astronomy at Johns Hopkins
University <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johns_Hopkins_University> pointed
out that Lanza's theory is consistent with quantum
mechanics<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics>,
“What Lanza says in this book is not new. Then why does Robert have to say
it at all? It is because we, the physicists, do NOT say it––or if we do say
it, we only whisper it, and in private––furiously blushing as we mouth the
words. True, yes; politically correct, hell no!”
[15]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biocentrism#cite_note-14>

-------------------

Like that?  I did.  Physicists whispering in private and blushing furiously.
 What an evocative image that makes!

And then an old friend of yours chimed in too...

---------------------

Indian physician and
writer[16]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biocentrism#cite_note-15>
[17] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biocentrism#cite_note-16> Deepak
Chopra<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepak_Chopra> stated
“Lanza's insights into the nature of consciousness [are] original and
exciting” and that “his theory of biocentrism is consistent with the most
ancient wisdom traditions of the world which says that consciousness
conceives, governs, and becomes a physical world. It is the ground of our
Being in which both subjective and objective reality come into existence."[
18] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biocentrism#cite_note-17>



On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 11:46 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:

> John,
>
> I like all that is described.  But I am still most fascinated by Quality
> experience as simply patterned experience and unpatterned experience. That
> this Quantum Science is on the front edge and creating new patterns is very
> exciting to read about. I love that there is so much Mystery still there
> and
> you occasionally read sentences like, 'The experiment has been done and it
> works, but we don't know what it means.' That is cutting edge!  From what
> you've posted on Biocentricism it is also front-edge,  theorizing, and very
> exciting. I'd like to read more about it.  But there is unpatterned
> experience too, with no claims to anything.
>
> I'll be going to Cape Cod for a few days soon.  I'm hoping the book that
> Ian
> suggested, 'Schrodinger's Kittens and the Search for Reality' will arrive
> in
> time to make the trip.
>
>
> Marsha
>
>
>
>  _____________
>
> "He who neglects the present moment throws away all he has."
>   (Friedrich von Schiller)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
> [mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of John Carl
> Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 1:44 PM
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Subject: Re: [MD] The Word is Not the Thing
>
> 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/
> >
> 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/
>

More information about the Moq_Discuss mailing list