3WD,
Unfortunately you picked the sloppiest sentence of my last post to
comment on. I thought the rest of my post better described what I was
after, but this shows how hard it is to write about and get right.
And it's confusing, no doubt. Let me try again.
Let's pretend we're Roentgen (sp?), the scientist who discovered x-rays.
He didn't discover them directly though; he inferred their existence by
what he saw on a photographic plate, after he passed his jaw between it
and a lump of uranium.
If you believe MOQ, Roentgen experienced pre-intellectual quality (DQ)
as he observed, for the first time ever, what is now commonly called
an x-ray picture. No doubt the DQ he experienced caused awe just before
he had a chance to realize he was seeing the ghostly image of his teeth
and jaw bones. Also if you believe MOQ, this DQ almost instantaneously
creates this picture and now the picture on the plate is SQ. Dave, this
is the dynamic event you describe.
Later, as you mention, a theory is proposed about x-rays. Once again DQ
is instrumental in the insights required for the theory, and out pops a
static theory.
So far both these examples of DQ involve the scientist, but Roentgen
is not interested in studying himself. He's there to study the inorganic
level. Now if you think Roentgen's first DQ experience is one involving
the inorganic level, you are right, but it's not the stuff he
is interested in. Remember, he looked at a *picture* of the *effect* of
x-rays, not the x-rays themselves. Even though it was awe-inspiring, he's
not interested in studying photography (or dentistry).
Now if I understand MOQ correctly, DQ is acting at the inorganic level
because the inorganic level evolves (albeit slowly by human standards).
And it acts regardless of whether any humans are around to experience it.
DQ is the agent on the sun, for example, responsible for changing hydrogen
to helium and emitting energy as a result, and presumably this has been
going on for billions of years before humans made the scene.
So there must be DQ involved when uranium spontaneously decays and emits
x-rays. THIS is an example of DQ scientists can't detect. Now, every single phenomena at the atomic level has this problem because the scientist can't
observe it directly. The stuff at the atomic level is too small or is at
the wrong frequency for humans, and so they must rely on instruments. What
scientists experience as DQ is the event which a split second later is an
instrument reading. The DQ of the underlying phenomena is lost on them.
Glenn
GLENN
> > I said the morals the physicists can't detect are the dynamic kind.
> 3WD
> The "dynamic kind" is exactly what they are detecting. A dynamic event
> occurs, it is experienced, "the sun rises", in the wake of this event a
> theory (SIP) is proposed as to how and why this occurs. As this theory
> persists and spreads within a society a stable body of laws, customs,
> traditions (static patterns of value) develops. Whether these patterns
> are called the mythology of the Ancient Egyptian Sun God, the physics of
> celestial bodys, or the quantum mechanics of light, each in its own
> context attempts to describe the event, but the description is NOT THE
> EVENT, no matter how close to actuality it is.
> 3WD
> To further compound the problem the event, "the sun rises", is not one
> event but a simutaneous occurance of many events within a whole "named"
> the sun, and this event is but a tiny part of a yet much larger group of
> simutaneous events that is "everything". And these are occuring as a
> continuum so closely packed as to blur the very concept of event. But
> somehow we order this experience and over time as we both observe and
> participate in these events it seems that there is a slow, persistant,
> but not necessarily regular, trend in which these parts of "everything"
> seem to be evolving towards greater degrees of freedom or autonomy from
> the whole. This not only increases the freedom for the "part" but is an
> overall increase in the level of freedom in the whole. This trend is
> GOOD both for the parts and the whole. RMP sums up the MoQ with "GOOD
> is a noun" The first noun definition of moral is: "the moral implication
> or moral lesson taught by the..event." What is the moral lesson or
> implication taught by events? They are GOOD and seem to have the
> potential to get better. But as the freedom of any part to make choices
> increases so do the responsiblities, without a good system to evaluate
> these choices in the context of both the whole and the parts, the
> rightness of the choices are not assured.
----------
Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Webmail account today at http://home.netscape.com/webmail/
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:45 BST