> There's an interesting implication of Greg's
> comments on the Green vs. later
> ages (that since there was no individual
> consciousness in the Green earlier
> ages, we can never truly understand them).
>
> See, as a science-trained person that sounds like a
> non-sequitur. We understand lots of things that we
> can't experience personally. I understand
> the QUANTUM, which is pretty darn weird. I
> understand, oh, the reason that certain floral
> extracts (colchicine from the periwinkle) cause
> mutations, but I've never experienced meiosis.
>
> So one suspects that Greg's using the word
> "understand" somewhat differently from me.
I think he means it, at least partially, in the same sense that quantum mechanics recognizes the observer as an intrinsic part of any experiment. The scientist is part of the experiment and the heroquester is part of the experience. In each case, they may be no more than the observer, but observation changes events, in both quantum physics and heroquesting. You don't have to be the quantum particle in order to observe its effects. Greg's point is that the Green Age (or at least earlier ages) prevents one from having the individual consciousness required to be an observer, at least in the normal sense. Valere's example shows that some form of observation is possible, but it is only observation where the observer is unable to place significance on (at least) the difference between observation and participation.
Putting words in Greg's mouth is a dangerous business (as dangerous as visiting the green age), though, so caveat lector.
--__--__--
Powered by hypermail