dear ken:
i, too, have been following the discussion of the tree falling in the forest
with some confusion.
you explained:
< I think these misunderstandings can be cleared up if we look at the
universe as being sort of like a biological syncytium-a quivering mass of
energy and life permeated by Quality and Value in continual operation. In
this view all happenings in the universe wold be observation and all would
be "moral" at the non-sentient level.
lithien:
as always, for some reason, what you say makes sense to me. but one
question: who would be doing the observing at the non-sentient level? and
would it be observing as we know it? or perhaps a sensing of some sort not
necessarily our definition of "observing" with our eyes, right?
you continue:
<All would be connected, however tenuously and all would be "aware" in the
Quality sense.
lithien:
is this awareness the observation that you mention before?
and how would it resolve the tree falling in the forest? are you saying
that since it would be observed by the universe it would exist even if it
wasnt observed at the sentient level?
i, also, mentioned the fact that the downing of the pan-am jet over
lockerbee, scotland happened nonetheless whether we saw it go down or not.
those people are very very dead.
if no one had seen it go down, like amelia aerhart, for instance, would that
negate their deadness at our sentient level?
how would the non-sentient and sentient division of DQ explain this? these
questions may seem unnecessary, but i think they go to the heart of what SOM
is. i've never been able to understand that completely. would you try
explaining it to me?
thanks,
lithien
MOQ Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:50 BST