Hettinger (hettingr@iglou.com)
Wed, 3 Dec 1997 15:24:40 +0100
Hi, LS and Dave,
Thanks all, for quotes. I'll try to pull them together soon.
And Dave, thanks for the graphic. It's appealing, simple. I'm going to try to reply in kind, if I can, but my graphics are mostly
still in my head. In some ways they match yours, but in others are different. It may take a while. I haven't quit my day jobs,
yet.
Dave Thomas wrote:
> So I
> > will make this assertion about those elements of reality we call now call “objects” in MoQ all will have aspects of their
> > total reality that lies in each of the four static levels.
> >
> Is the last line true?
>
This makes sense to me. There are many "things" that we are unconscious of, that people have never noticed. Any of them would
have aspects in other levels but not intellectual. They are not objects. They have not been observed.
But, there is no intellectual pattern that is independent of lower levels. Any high-level pattern has mediated and re-ordered
lower patterns or it doesn't exist. And, if it mediates even one level of patterns, that automatically mediates sets of lower-level
patterns, with the chain effect going all the way to the inorganic. So, there's no pattern that exists in only upper-levels.
There are patterns that exist only in lower.
>From this standpoint, the quantum physics assertion ( I believe)--that the act of being observed "causes" the thing--doesn't seem so
far-fetched as it does from the common-sense point of view.
Maggie
-- post message - mailto:lilasqd@hkg.com unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:25 CEST