[MD] MoQ as religion

[Heather Perella]

Ian, Kevin, and others,
   
       Ian said:  "(SA, to any good 20th or 21st century "scientist", atoms and hormones
are hugely complicated things evolved from much simpler beginnings.
Information is one such plausible "beginning". And don't forget,
everything may evolve from these, but that is not a simple
reductionist causal argument - not everything "consists" or is "made
up from" or "caused by" these things. Evolution is more sophisticated,
more "strange-loopy" emergent than that.)"
   
       Are you pointing towards what I mentioned as scientists not recognizing thought or to scientists we are hormones and such?  Psychologists recognize thought, but where is a thought?  Is it material, thus, all in the brain tissue?  And in what way will they approach thought?  Like a philosopher?  Not yet.  This difference is what I was referring to when I said a scientist doesn't recognize thought.  I guess I meant in the way a philosopher does.  In the case of changing SOM to MOQ one may say Pirsig was as all philosophers were and are - the original psychologists.  As to where is thought and can a scientist point to it?  Well, can anybody point to something that merges with DQ?
       
   
       As to what you said Kevin, I now notice not just thought, but trust, as you mentioned, is a concept wrapped with belief.  Why is the static (thought for example) and dynamic wrapped with belief?  Anything that emerges from dynamic quality, even if static for somebody else, but dynamic to me (meaning I have not been able to define this anything) is, if any pursuit of wisdom or static quality is to occur, something to belief may happen.  Even if trust comes into play that there will always be dynamic quality still, thus, something undefined in this pursuit of ours.
   
   
  Thanks,
  SA
  
 

		
---------------------------------
Blab-away for as little as 1¢/min. Make  PC-to-Phone Calls using Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.