Hi David T., Bodvar and all,
David T.'s backwards walking exercise is interesting not only for the news
things that come into the field of sight, but because of the widened
perspective on the things that were already in site.
Donny once quoted something about using mirrors to watch oneself doing
philosophy from the back.
I think that both this and David T.'s backwards walk are about the same
thing.
There was a great (IMHO) newspaper advertisement that appeared in England
some years back.
The opening shots consisted of a punk walking towards an old man in the
street.
The next shot is the punk breaking into a run towards the old man.
Third shot is the punk throwing the terrified "victim" to the ground.
The final shot is of some scaffolding crashing down and just missing them
both.
What I liked about the sequence is that it starts off with a prejudice,
builds on it, and then destroys it in a final ironic twist.
All this time, the camera is panning steadily backwards.
>
> What caused these events? Or?
> Why are these events valued? Or?
> Of what value are these events?
In my example, the events perceived change, and the way they are valued
changes.
The same "facts" take on a completely new meaning.
Bodvar (2 Nov 1999):-
> Where does Metaphysics of Quality look for (and find) an explanation,
> or the reason, for everything?
I think that we have to realize that every "explanation" should be regarded
as tentative, and we are obligated to go on "stepping backwards" to widen
our view. How far to go? As far as one can go without falling, and without
losing site of the objective.
Bodvar (5 Nov 1999)
>As everyone (of the MF) know, the MOQ rejects the subject/object
>division in favour of a Dynamic quality/Static quality one.
I don't know this, and keep pulling Bo up on the same point. Please show me
where the MoQ REJECTS the subject/object division. As I see it, the MoQ
subsumes the SO division. It is a step backwards so that one no longer
assumes the division as some absolute "given", but instead asks "on what
basis am I making this SO division?"
Interestingly, this is a major element of modern physics - the idea that the
measurer (subject) is actually part of the same system as the observed
"object".
On a minor sideline, several people have recently brought up (again) the
causation paradox.
Let me again draw attention to my "The End of Causality" essay, now in the
forum.
The main point of the essay is that this paradox is apparent in science way
before the advent of quantum theory.
Have a nice week everyone.
Jonathan
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:37 BST