Jimmy Bornhoeft Mikkelsen (Jimmybm@post3.tele.dk)
Thu, 28 Aug 1997 11:49:05 +0100
This is my first posting to The Lila Squad, this means that I have
dropped (belly first) into the middle of a (lot) discussion(s) So I hope
you will have patience with me.
I would like to start with praising the internet.
We are very fortunate to be able to meet and share our thoughts with
other people who live in different parts of the world.
In the first posting I recieved the question, which has more quality
a mountain or an atom and does some ideas have more quality than
others.
My answer to the first one would be MU (ZMM, but I can not remember
the where).
A mountain can be beautiful, full of life and of potential.
An atom can also be beautiful and full of potential.
And of course they both have quality, but when above question is
asked, an Aristotilian split is made between matter and substance.
It is that kind of splitting that the MOQ is turning away from.
The question is faulty.
We can say that:
An Idea is an Idea, but an atom is not a mountain.
This does also mean that we can say that some ideas has more
quality=value than others.
An example is that Nietzches übermench idea has more calue than Hitlers
idea of "the arien race".
To finish of I have a spontanious thought that popped into my mind:
If the dynamic quality is filled with to many levels,do we not lose
the flexibillity and power. E.G. If a quantum level is added, then
it sounds to me that it is just sucking up to modern science.
Is The quantum theory not only a theory (that is valid TODAY) which
explains matter.
-- post message - mailto:skwok@spark.net.hk unsubscribe/queries - mailto:lilasquad@geocities.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:41:26 CEST