[MD] Through a glass darkly

[118]

On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 2:02 PM, Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:
>
> Hi Mark --
>
>
>> My statement of "center of the universe" was rhetorical.  The universe
>> is expanding in equal rates away from us in all directions.  This would
>> put the edge of the universe at equal distances in all directions.  Thus,
>> "technically" we are at the center of the universe. Now if you want to
>> bring in more dimensions to state that this is not the case, be my guest,
>> but if so you would just be guessing, or making things up.
>>
>> For the latest microwave map of the universe, please visit:
>> http://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/
>[Ham]
> I reviewed the link you provided, but saw no evidence in Nasa's WMAP writeup
> to support your assertion that "we are at the center of the universe."  Not
> that it makes any difference but, so far as we know, the universe has no
> boundary.  If the universe is expanding at equal rates in all directions,
> then any point in the universe would qualify as "the center" by the geometry
> of an expanding field.

[Mark]
Well, I would have to understand what you mean by the geometry of an
expanding field.  If my explanation did not make sense concerning the
center, it is of no matter.  I was just pointing out that the center
of the universe has its interpretations, and we being at the center of
such is a property of perception, supported by data from physics.  We
each are at the center of the universe.  I do not see how you can
argue otherwise, unless you know something I do not.
>
>> I stick by my premise that we cannot create quality or value, only
>> interpret it.  The brain is part of the universe and cannot be made
>> distinct or the source of value.  What happens in our heads is exactly
>> the same as what is happening in the universe at large.  Nothing
>> special except that we inhabit it, sorry.
>[Ham]
> No need to apologize, Mark, as we are basically in agreement.  I have never
> claimed that we "create" Value, yet you continue to charge me with this
> assertion.  What I have said is that Value is the sensible realization of
> something greater than ourselves -- call it Being, Magnificence,
> Intelligence, Beauty, Excellence, Goodness, or Quality.  I believe our
> sensibility ultimately relates to the Absolute Source, which I call Essence.

[Mark]
OK, I will drop my assertions about what you think, it is kind of
presumptive anyway.  So what if we call Being Quality?  At least that
makes more sense, since Being is kind of vague.  I would also say that
your Realization is my Interpretation.  We can only realize what is
there, not otherwise.  It is the separation from the absolute source
which I do not see as necessary, we are the absolute source.
>[Ham]
> You say "what happens in our heads is what is happening in the universe at
> large."  I see no need for this redundancy.  The "universe at large" IS the
> universe experienced, whether in our heads, our hands, or our sensory
> organs.  The world of appearances is our proprietary construct of
> value-sensibility.

[Mark]
Again, it would appear that you are separating the universe from the
experience.  This separation is also standard for many in MoQ.  I do
not see how such a separation happens, or why, or when.  Experience is
the universe, at least our part of it.  The world of appearances
occurs through an interaction between our brains and that outside, in
the same way that shadows are formed from the interaction of an object
and the path of photons.  It is all the same thing, ours is human, but
otherwise no different.  It is proprietary to the human experience,
but not to the individual, we cannot tell our nerves how to fire.
>[Ham]
> What has you confused is my epistemology; namely, that we differentiate
> essential Value into degrees or units, ranging from the lowest or poorest to
> the highest or greatest, from which we experientially "construct" the
> properties and attributes of our reality.  Think of the prism's conversion
> of white light into the color spectrum.  I use the term "construct"
> advisedly, so as not to imply that we create Value.  What we do create
> ("actualize") from differentiated value is the appearance of finite
> relational entities that we call the objects of our experience.  This
> "self-created appearance" is our being in a differentiated world that
> represents our individual values, both good and bad.

[Mark]
Your Value is my Quality, only my Quality is the source, and not some
"other side" kind of thing.  Yes, the prism does not create
wavelengths, but it does separate them.  I agree with you, I think I
have in the past too.
>
>> But, you know my position on this.  For me it is a sense of freedom
>> and unity more than anything.  That is what is special.
>>
>> For the most part, I am in agreement with your ontology.
>[Ham]
> I am with you on individual Freedom.  However, Freedom and Unity are
> non-compatible values.  Nature (the evolving universe) as a unity is locked
> into the teleology of its creator.  Essence is perfect unity in itself for
> which freedom is meaningless.  Only an individual agent is free to choose
> and pursue his own values.  Man is the choicemaker of the world.

[Mark]
For me, freedom and unity are compatible.  When you are everything,
you are free and not subject to another thing.  However, this is more
an awareness then one born from logic.  So by this view, Essence is
free.  As you know, I believe everything has choice, from the single
neurons in your head, to the photon.  I do not see how only man has
this property.  If the universe is locked into the teleology of the
creator, then so are we, and I do not see such subordination.  The
world has a lot more choice than we do, if we want to devide things up
that way.
>
What is special is that we get to experience this whole thing.
>
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
>