clark (clark@netsites.net)
Thu, 12 Mar 1998 04:21:22 +0100
----------
> From: Magnus Berg <qmgb@bull.se>
> To: Multiple recipients of <lilasqd@mail.hkg.com>
> Subject: LS Re: Ken and Bo
> Date: Wednesday, March 11, 1998 3:21 AM
>
> Hi Donny, just a quick one.
>
> > You're certainly right about the theory being primary. My rule
of
> > thumb is this: It is
> > most helpful to stop thinking of science as a window into the mind of
God
> > ("This is how the world is regardless of what you or I or anyone know,
> > say, think, feel, or care about it!") and think of it insted as a way
in
> > which we talk to one-another. Clearly it is the latter before it can
be
> > anything else. Science is a social enterprise. And as such it is also a
> > moral one -- there is a right way it is done and a wrong way. It is a
> > channel of comunication, the truth-value of which depends on whether it
is
> > open or closed.
>
> Some hi-Q thoughts here, thanks. I'm curious about the communication
channel.
> Do you think SETI (Search for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence) research
> is futile?
>
> > A fact is the result of a proof. It's existance depends on the
> > proof -- which is inherently social/moral. W/o society there are no
proofs
> > and w/o proofs there are no facts. How does that strike you?
>
> As a good example of intellectual/social interlevel dependency.
>
> Magnus
>
> --
> "I'm so full of what is right, I can't see what is good"
> N. Peart - Rush
>
>
> --
> post message - mailto:lilasqd@hkg.com
> unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com
> homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
>
>
Ls Bo, Magnus, and Donny,
There is something about your last three postings that bothers and I
don't know whether I can put it into words or not.
I can agree with you that the MOQ is primary but we should remember that
we are not just talking about the period when awareness has existed in the
universe. The MOQ (in my mind) has existed since the beginning. The
question of whether it existed before the Big Bang or came after is
something I am not prepared to hazard a guess on. That would make a great
deal of difference
I have had some peripheral contact with the activity of science and in my
experience most, if not all, investigators do not do science with the idea
that they are attempting to find the mind of God. They are mostly just
people who are fascinated with the puzzle of the relation of things and
find it absorbing and great fun. Their profession requires that they
maintain a non-judgmental attitude toward their results, The scientist who
began to speculate in mystical terms about questions of science or his
results in the journals would soon lose his credibility.
This does not mean that he can't go down to the coffee shop or to a bar
and discuss meaning, but the experimental results must be expressed in
non-judgmental terms because it becomes a link in the chain of knowledge
and as such must be value free until the final conclusion is reached. I
suppose this means that these constraints will be forever because I doubt
if we will ever reach that final answer. If such a time ever comes that
will be the time for value or moral interpretation.
This is not the same as the activity of Philosophy because this activity
is open to anyone with any degree of competence and is based on speculation
about final meanings. This is not to denigrate the activity of Philosophy,
just recognize the difference. It may be that we can get the final answer
by thinking about it but I have my doubts just as I have my doubts about
getting the final answer by experimentation.
The Metaphysics of Quality, as I view it, can easily subsume science,
philosophy, or any other human activity. We don't need to beat ourselves
over the head about SOMME because SOM was produced, along with everything
else, and every other activity, human or otherwise, by the Metaphysics of
Quality. My view of the MOQ is that it has worked with all of the "facts"
of the universe to bring us to the position which we now occupy. What we
are doing now is just to work up an explanation of the MOQ that we can use
to convince the remainder of humanity that our views are correct. After 70
your head gets soft and I am losing track of my argument so I will quit
this by saying that, if we are correct, and the MOQ represents a continual
increase for greater understanding and morality and value (in every area of
Gaia, not just humanity) then we don't need to concern ourselves with
operation of the MOQ, just how to explain it to others.
Magnus, I too am fascinated by SETI. I don't see how we can hope to
actually establish communication with another civilization because of the
time and distance factors but we may be able to intercept meaningful
signals from other civilizations. Wouldn't that be a blast.
"Science" tells us that as far as we can see to make any determination
the physical operation of the universe follows the same laws. It seems to
me that, under those circumstances, it would be strange if intelligence had
not come into being in other parts of the universe. Whoever set this up was
wise in making it impossible for us to have interplanetary wars because of
the time and distance. We have enough trouble here on this rock. In my
opinion the MOQ is also universal in operation.
The question I have is would the MOQ have the same organization at the
sentient level in an alien civilization as it does at the sentient level in
this one? Ken Clark
-- 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 - 16:42:55 CEST