[MD] The Word is Not the Thing

John Carl ridgecoyote at gmail.com
Wed Sep 16 08:39:55 PDT 2009 

I got Chopra confused with Krishnamurti, I think.  That was it.
And I have a problem with "life creating the cosmos" also.  It doesn't quite
fit, which is why I think the MoQ has a better explanatory power with life
and the cosmos arising from DQ.  But Biocentrism is very close and brings a
lot together ... that physicist whisper to each other in the dark.

>From more of the review of Biocentrism by Henry,

 http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/biocentrism.pdf

Included in the review is an amusing riff on the Lorentz Transformation
which the authors get wrong in the appendix.

 For the following reason:

Who is to blame for the farce of Appendix 1? Not Robert or Bob (or even Ben
for that matter).

*I *am the person to blame. I teach freshman physics, and I teach it just as
badly as the next

professor. Our freshman text (regardless of which one we choose) presents
the two postulates.

These are so unintuitive that anyone learning relativity that way could
never be expected to

recognize a wrong version of the Lorentz transformation of time intervals.
No, Robert and Bob

are to be *commended *for pursuing their underlying thesis *despite *having
been taught physics so

wretchedly badly by me and my physics friends.




On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 2:01 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:

>
> John,
>
> I really like reading about the Copenhagen Interpretation, and the follow
> up.  I just do...  I don't think I've ever written a word about Deepak
> Chopra, I know his name but not much else about him, although I really like
> the song he sings with Demi Moore: Desire.  "We will be neighbors in the
> stars."  That Lanza says "consciousness conceives, governs, and becomes a
> physical world." is interesting.  I can sense a question here, "becomes a
> physical world"?  Becomes?  Like a cloud can become an elephant?  And
> certainly he doesn't mean a physical world of inherently existenting
> objects?
>
>
> Marsha
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
> [mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of John Carl
> Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 1:46 AM
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Subject: Re: [MD] The Word is Not the Thing
>
> 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/
> >
> 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