From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Sun Jan 04 2004 - 12:46:11 GMT
Hi David M,
> The entire cosmos is a singularity and a whole.
> You cannot weigh or compare it to anything else
> because there is no anything else. It is an absolute,
> a unity. Measure/number is the activity of division and
> seperation. The whole is divided into an static quality of 2. The sky above
> the earth below, and the third that stands back and divides: active DQ. And
> at some time I am a rich man sitting on my big pile of coal and you are a
> poor man with no coal. And then we stop valuing coal so highly. And so the
> dance of differenciation and valuation goes on.
Yes. We divide to survive.
> Numbers are great because they are so easy to agree on.
> A simplification of complex experience. So tied to the division
> of resoures. Let's divide the sweets 50/50, that's 8 each I think.
> You did 4 hours work I did 2 but I'm more qualified than you
> so I get 80%. 2 hydrogen atoms to one of oxygen a recipe for
> making water. Measure, division, and the allocation of reward.
> A communicable description for control, it is no good me telling
> you that I used a bucket of oxygen and a bag of hydrogen to make
> water, we agree a means of simple communication. Number equals
> simplification and communicability and recordability to make successful
> control of materials and even people.
Number works beautifully at the lower levels. The question is why?
And why not at the upper levels?
> Simple but not too simple to be
> successful. But can all of reality be described by number. Clearly not.
> Number forms a small part of the total words in a language. Many of the
> words relate to value, non quantitative value. How does activity relate to
> number? What attracts the proton to the electron? The attraction of
> numbers? Perhaps not.
Physical forces are expressible in numbers, but no one claims numbers
create the forces. The unsolved problem is the reason for relationship
between the numbers and the forces.
> Concepts always imply opposites. Ugly/beauty equality/inequality
> fair/unfair. Without the ugly we would have no beauty. Without
> opposites there would be nothing rather than something.
> Such is our finite existence. The trick, I think, is to realise
> that each pole has their uses. When you are not well you may wish
> to cease having sexual attention. It is great that some people are taller
> than others. It would be terrible for any one pole to be taken to the
> extreme. It would be terrible to have no beauty in your life, or too little
> money, or too much unfairness. On one day patriotism is good, on another
> bad. Nationalism has had very great and very dark days. SOM has its
> achievments and evils. Numbers are great for counting, rubbish for art
> appreciation.
Agree. Concepts require opposites. Black would not be without white there
too. Not sure what that has to do with my question about how to measure
values at upper levels. As for art appreciation, a trip to an auction
house will show numerical values represented by money as a measure of art
appreciation. Or, check with an art appraiser. Question: Are such monetary
values strictly social level, or do they indicate values at a higher
level? Must higher level values always revert to "I know what I like"? In
other words, are intellectual and artistic values "subjective"? If so,
what happens to the denial of subjectivity in the MOQ?
Thanks.
Best regards,
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Jan 04 2004 - 12:43:50 GMT