>Hi Squad, Glove,
>
>>Glove:
>>I have noticed a discrepency in your twisted space theory, Fintan. If
>>space is twisted, then no such thing as a Euclidean line will exist
>
>Sort of catch 22 eh? Of course i'm just reducing from 4 dimensions to 3 in
>my model- so my straight lines are still straight.
Glove:
I am unsure what you mean here. Perhaps you could elaborate when you have
the time.
>
>
>>I see correlations with the traditional version of heaven and hell in your
>>theory that cause dis-ease in me as well.
>
>In my model Heaven is the future and Hell is the past. Is there a problem
>there?
Glove:
Well, let me try and show you what I mean. When I stand on the earth in an
upright position and raise my eyes to the sky and say, heaven is above me
and hell is below, what I am not realizing is that I am actually hanging
upside-down off of a spinning living massive ball of dust and rock and water
blasting thru space at incredible speeds, and the only thing that keeps me
from flying off into space is this mysterious thing called gravity. Up is
really under my feet and down is above my head, but really there is no "up"
and there is no "down". Each is only an agreement I have formed, a way to
conceptualize what would otherwise be unconceptual.
Also, I believe that time is merely a special condition of "imaginary time."
What we call the future and the past is imaginary, the only realness is the
moment, the now. Yet at the same time, the realness of the moment is merely
a conceptual agreement we have learned to make with reality. To focus on
either past, present or future is conceptualized agreements and nothing
more. Therefore my dis-ease at labeling the past as hell and the future as
heaven. But it is probably only me, my agreements, that are causing it.
>>While I understand what you are
>>offering is only an analogy, still it seems much more restrictive in its
>>outlook than does the Metaphysics of Quality.
>
>
>Ummm. Whereas the restriction?
Glove:
You are right Fintan. After re reading your original post I see what you
mean. It was my original opinion that you left out Dynamic Quality but now I
see I was wrong. Actually, the more I look at your theory, the more I like
it. It's very intriguing. Thanks for sharing it.
Best wishes,
glove
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