[MD] Quantum Enigma

Mon Oct 11 13:56:40 PDT 2010

I think that sounds to me like an excellent recommendation, Marsha.  I got
an Amazon gift certificate for my b-day, I think I'll use it to get me a
copy.

On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 8:52 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:

>
> Greetings Ian,
>
>        (Wallace, B. Alan, 'Choosing Reality : A Buddhist View of Physics
> and the Mind',paperback,2003)
>
>
> Marsha
>
>
> On Oct 11, 2010, at 11:17 AM, Ian Glendinning wrote:
>
> > Marsha, Ron,
> >
> > You talking about "Choosing Reality" by "this book" Marsha ?
> > (As opposed to Vescio's introduction in "Pragmatism" mentioned by Ron.
> > My edition has an intro by A J Ayer, Ron ? Which do you have ?)
> >
> > Ian
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 4:04 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I'd love to hear Dawkins, Dennett and Hitchens comment on this book.  In
> fact, I'l love to hear Krimel comment on this book.   But I'm premature and
> only to page 67.  Maybe there will be scientific redemption and resurrection
> somewhere in future chapters.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Oct 11, 2010, at 8:58 AM, MarshaV wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> OMG!  What a book!  Science, as it as been presented to me up through
> even last week, lay before me beaten to an unrecognizable bloody pulp that
> stopped breathing an hour ago.  Oh my...  Oh my...   But, being pragmatic
> and the fact that I like, no love listening to Beethoven's Ninth Symphony on
> my iPod, I run to get a box of bandaids.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Oct 11, 2010, at 5:07 AM, MarshaV wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi John,
> >>>>
> >>>> I think you'd like this book be B. Alan Wallace 'Choosing Reality: A
> Buddhist View of Physics and the Mind.'  The book has early on a chapter
> tracing the history of the scientific realism versus scientific
> instrumentalism debate.  Very interesting!!!  The next chapter is on science
> today.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Marsha
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Oct 6, 2010, at 6:50 PM, John Carl wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> made me look, Marsha. Even worse, made me wiki-look.
> >>>>> ---On Rationalism vs. Empiricism
> >>>>> The most prominent distinguishing characteristic between these two
> >>>>> philosophies is that strict empiricists reject all *a priori* truths,
> >>>>> decrying any belief in innate knowledge or intuition
> >>>>> --------
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So to an empiricist, "belief" is the problem.  Do they believe this
> >>>>> strongly?  And from what "facts" is it derived?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hmmm... indeed.  I'm with you on that one, Marsha.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> John
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 11:00 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Hello again,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Been thinking, normally dangerous, but with a fever doubly so.  -  I
> keep
> >>>>>> thinking about you using the term "rational construct".  It seems to
> me
> >>>>>> while your Philosophy of Essence and the Metaphysics of Quality are
> both
> >>>>>> centered on Value their major difference is reason versus
> experience.  Yes?
> >>>>>> Rationality versus Empiricism?   Do you agree?  And having done a
> search, I
> >>>>>> see ti is a very old conflict, indeed.  Hmmm.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Marsha
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Oct 2, 2010, at 2:49 AM, MarshaV wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Greetings Ham,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Oct 2, 2010, at 2:05 AM, Ham Priday wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Marsha:
> >>>>>>>>> How I understand conscious awareness is as pure process,
> >>>>>>>>> 100% immediate experience, and the moment one tries to
> >>>>>>>>> analyze it, it is gone.  All other entities - I, knower, self,
> >>>>>>>>> individual, me,  etc. -  are _conceptually constructed_ and
> >>>>>>>>> have no independent existence.  They are a  conglomerate
> >>>>>>>>> ever-changing, impermanent, interdependent, inorganic,
> >>>>>>>>> biological, social and intellectual static patterns of value.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Ham:
> >>>>>>>> Marsha, you are attempting to describe the subjective self as if
> it were
> >>>>>> an objective entity, which of course is impossible.  Yes, "raw"
> experience
> >>>>>> is "immediate", but it hardly represents 100% of conscious
> awareness.  There
> >>>>>> is also the memory function which links self-awareness to the past
> and makes
> >>>>>> experience a continuum; the emotive response which is the
> psycho-biological
> >>>>>> reaction to what is experienced; and intellection which interprets
> the data
> >>>>>> as a rational construct.  'I', 'Knower', 'Individual', and 'Me' are
> not
> >>>>>> different entities but simply the labels we use to identify the
> Self.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> That standard definition, which even you must be tired of by now,
> paints
> >>>>>> a fuzzy picture of self-awareness as if to demean its
> credibility--which of
> >>>>>> course is your intent.  I still feel this is somewhat disingenuous
> on your
> >>>>>> part.  Certainly we cannot objectivize, quantify, measure, or
> localize
> >>>>>> conscious awareness as we can, say, a rock or a tree.  Conversely,
> however,
> >>>>>> what would the rock or tree be if there was no awareness of it?  As
> Pirsig
> >>>>>> insisted, experience is primary; and since experience is known only
> to
> >>>>>> awareness, all we really know about objective existence is that it
> is
> >>>>>> patterned from sensible value.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Marsha:
> >>>>>>> I am putting aside the experience of raw data (unpatterned
> experience)
> >>>>>> and talking about conscious awareness as in mindfulness.
>  Mindfulness is a
> >>>>>> technique easily learned and strengthened through practice.  It's
> the
> >>>>>> experience of being here-now without constructing an associated past
> or
> >>>>>> future.  In the mindfulness experience there is no building a
> subjective
> >>>>>> self for it is all _process_, all immediate experience.  Pattern
> recognition
> >>>>>> seems limited to the function of the sense organ.  It is _habit_
> that
> >>>>>> associates these immediate experiences with an individual,
> independent self,
> >>>>>> or its various labels, rather than understanding that it is a flow
> of
> >>>>>> experiences.  _Habit_ that when conscious awareness (mindfulness)
> stops then
> >>>>>> the making of meaning begins (internal story-telling).  It is the
> conceptual
> >>>>>> constructing, making of meaning, that creates the independent self.
>  It is
> >>>>>> an after-experience add-on.  I am suggesting that in mindfulness it
> is
> >>>>>> obvious that experiences comes fi
> >>>>>> rst, and that associating now-experiences to a 'self' is a secondary
> >>>>>> habit.   Experience is primary!  Self-building is secondary.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Thanks Ham,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Marsha
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>> ___
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 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
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ___
> >>
> >>
> >> 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
> >>
> > 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
>
>
>
> ___
>
>
> 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
>