[MD] Betterness - 4 levels of!

[118]

Hi Tim,
OK, misunderstanding on my part is not uncommon.  Hopefully I get it right
this time...

On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 9:45 PM, <rapsncows at fastmail.fm> wrote:


>
> [Tim]
> You have me backwards I think.  I am wondering if, by using our language
> - here in the metaphysics of Quality - by formally looking at our
> understanding of teh self, of the absolute essence, of process leading
> to process leading to process, of Dynamic Quality: if by formally
> following through in our precise discussions, does a physics fall out of
> this, and this alone, of its own.  I am wondering if there is not in
> fact a physics inherent in a good metaphysics.  How that physics might
> compare to the (objective) physics of the physicists is their bag.  RMP,
> and I think we here, at least for the most part, think that there is
> something to this concept of quality, which is lacking in the 'objective
> physics', and which serves as a better static foundation for being.  I
> am wondering if we, from this side, are better equipped to bridge the
> abyss (or surmount the peak)!  Or are we totally isolated?  For my part,
> I think that there is something to this suspicion I now have.
>

[Mark]
As you know, physics uses equations to relate things.  Typically this is
done by creating some kind of equality with different terms on each side,
each side representing something different.  Often a constant must be also
included to make the units of measure equal.  There are of course lots of
fancy maths that have been developed recently, but in essence we try to
relate something to something else.  Energy and mass for example.  The
equations are in turn used to make predictions to validate the equations.
 How the data is interpreted is sometimes influenced by the data and in that
sense it becomes kind of self-referential.  This is not new to you.

Your idea is a good one.  I have tried to get enough understanding from MOQ
to create such equations.  They must be very simple of course.  I don't
think there is yet agreement or perhaps a hesitancy to describe too much in
concrete terms.  We have had a discussion about providing characteristics
for dynamic quality; whether or not that is appropriate, for example.
 Perhaps it is some kind of sacrilege.   So at this time, it is difficult to
form any kind of equation.  Also the fluidity of language makes a
physics-like interpretation difficult.  But I would not say this is
impossible, and even if it is done with fuzzy math, something may be
learned.

>
>
> [Tim]
> I don't know how to compare our metaphysics to the ancients.  I do
> recognize that they were great thinkers in this regard.  They didn't
> have teevee and the internet, and video games, and etc. to distract
> them.  But I'm not ready to bow before them.  And I don't think you are
> either.
>

[Mark]
No, not bow to them, but maybe save some time by learning.  Not reinventing
the wheel for example.  A while back I reminded Ham of an essay called The
Equations of Maya.  It is an interesting read and relates physics to (old)
Vedic Thought.  A google should pick it up. It took me a few reads to get
it.

>
> [Tim]
> wooohoooo, finally a reference to someone I have read!  (Actually, I had
> read a bit of Cassirer too, interesting story.)  I was supremely
> disappointed by teh glass bead game, so I don't think I got out of it
> what I should ahve gotten out of it; in fact I even liked 'Roshalde'
> better than it - amongst others.
>

[Mark]
You know, I kind of agree with you, I found it incomplete.  The concept
itself was a good one.  I haven't read Rosshalde, I'll give it a try if it
is in the library.

>
> [Tim]

anyway, what you express in this paragraph is my fear.  If metaphysics
> cannot build a bridge to either physics or society (politics), then at
> best it will be a 'priesthood'.  Or, am I missing something?  Anyway, if
> this is the case I don't know what value the 'answers' will have.
> Perhaps they will be as clear as those given by the glass bead game.
>

[Mark]
I guess it depends on what you are expecting from our knowledge.  Knowledge
is a creation of man.  It has no significance outside of man, just like a
bees hive doesn't have the same significance to us as it does to bees.  We
have no bee understanding of it, to them it is the most significant thing in
the world.  The glass bead game is a game of course.  The value it had was
in providing meaning to the players.  Such value was entertainment and
enjoyment.  The meaning I get is knowing that a sense of self exists.

>
> [Tim]

Anyway, my suspicion is that metaphysics (and one very close to teh MoQ)
> will provide an undergirding for physics, some time.  It wont constitute
> physics per se because it will be unfalsifiable, but it will be highly
> enticing because physics will have fallen out of it.  Something that
> produces such fruit will be hard to ignore.  I think that it will be
> here that metaphysics (not meta-religion) connects to 'faithful' living.
>  And of course, since the utter present is always unknown, the ability
> for metaphysics, physics, and any religion / spiritualism to order
> society will be as tenuous as it is now (and to the extent that it is
> less tenuous in practice... it will be more difficult to improve).
> Anyway, this is my suspicion, and I was wondering how others here might
> say it - I have presumed, rather felt, that you have something similar
> you might say.
>

[Mark]
As a scientist I see no reason why not apply some math to MOQ just to see
where it goes.  The problem is in getting some firm definitions from others.
 To describe is to destroy is what I have heard.  But, I am hopeful.

>
>
> [Tim]
> so you see, you have me backwards.  I am wondering if a proper (close
> enough, workable, ...) metaphysics might TELL physics where its
> foundations lie.  I am wondering if science, by trying to go backwards,
> is trying to hit a bullseye from an impossible distance, but if we, by
> grabbing hold of that bullseye directly, might bring it to their front
> porch.  I am wondering if we, by not concerning ourselves with objective
> physics, might actually have, ripening in our thoughts, ...
>

[Mark]
For me it is too early for ripening.  I wrote a piece to you just previously
on art and physics.  Metaphysics could have the same impact on physics.  In
fact many physicists are coming around to Buddhism.  The Buddhists just
smile.

>
> [Tim]

In all this precise discussion (and especially because I have this
> perspective on objective physics taht the ancients didn't have), I think
> that it is not too ridiculous to think that there is something to this
> suspicion.  But I also wonder if I am chasing my tail, like one of those
> math problems where you jump into a redundancy, work feverishly, and
> eventually show 0=0.
>
> The thing about a 'long living metaphysics' is that it is independent of
> time, culture, everything.  If you hit it you hit.  There is also a
> legitimate question as to whether it is a good thing to hit it, or if it
> is a good idea to try, but we are all here, after all.  I think the
> dynamism of the utter present, and especially when combined with my
> metaphysical thoughts: that I am protected from myself, that the
> absolute essence cannot know iteslf, but it is trying, etc. - should
> reduce this fear to naught but a admonition to humility (and dynamic
> morality through the process).
>
> or else, if someone could please shoot me down... put me in my place...
> It would be great to know that I am being ridiculous...  But what are we
> doing here?  We all sense value, right?
>

[Mark]
In my opinion, metaphysics is intended to answer that question.  The answer
provides meaning, a sense of Wow, peace and harmony with the world.  Maybe I
am the crazy one, who knows.

>
> [Tim]

I've gotten a bit excited at times here, and even before, when reading
> ZAMM and Lila, but I bring myself back down to earth, and the feeling
> that there is something to this persists.  Is it there because ... well,
> the reason is probably not so simple, but in large, because: who is
> going to spend such efforts in this thin air?
>
> Is the fruit here?  And merely because fruit seekers never thought that
> valuable fruit could be found here?  Conversely, many physicist are
> hotly pursuing grand theories of everything.  They too think that there
> is something like this to be found.  IF they find it, won't they be
> telling us that we have done our jobs wrong?  OR if they confirm us,
> won't they be telling us that we were silly not to pick the fruit that
> was lying more in our camp than theirs?  Unless, of course, the picking
> of such fruit would be immoral; but I have been pouring over that too,
> and I am unafraid there: discussions welcome.
>

[Mark]
What I have been told by Buddhists, especially of the Zen variety, is that
once enlightenment happens, nothing changes.  So in a way I would interpret
that as the fruit is here, we just don't appreciate it.  But, what do I
know.  There are times that I feel that way, but those times are still in
between the rest.  It is the times that I am in the middle of something
active and forget to reflect, that I like.  Kind of like working on a
scientific project when the project and I become of one.  If that makes
sense

>
> Cheers,
>
Mark

>
> 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/md/archives.html
>