[MD] Chaos and Goldilocks

[PhaedrusWolff at carolina.rr.com]

SA)      First off, I don't think you mean disciple, maybe
discipline?  If you did mean the former, then I was
thrown off by the comment.  If you do mean discipline,
then by metaphysics, your saying it is trying to
transcend.  Transcend is to get away from, or beyond. 
What is metaphysics trying to get beyond?  If
metaphysics is always trying to get away, transcend,
and go beyond, when will metaphysics be satisfied?

Hi SA,

I hope Case does not mind me butting in and back out quickly here, but 
try to think of metaphysics as enlightenment. It is quite possible 
neither will be satisfied, but IF, it could only be in the future. 

Chin

----- Original Message -----
From: Heather Perella <spiritualadirondack at yahoo.com>
Date: Sunday, December 10, 2006 4:57 pm
Subject: Re: [MD] Chaos and Goldilocks
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org

> 
> 
> > [Case]
> > I mean that Order is a subset of Chaos. 
> 
>     ha, ha, of course.  :-)
> 
>     [Case]
> > If Chaos is the set of all
> > probability then Order is the set of persistent
> > relationships within that
> > set.
> 
>     So, everything is chaotic, and yet, those
> relationships within the chaos is orderly.  Does this
> also mean, everything is chaos and everything is
> order?  I'm not used to thinking within a chaotic
> paradigm, so, please stick with me, I could use some
> help, that to you might seem obvious, but to me, when
> I'm trying to understand what your saying, it all
> seems to be upside down.  Thanks for helping.
> 
>     [Case]
> > Order is a specific form of Chaos.
> 
>     Are you saying order is chaos?  Chaos is order? 
> What other specific forms of chaos exist?
> 
>     [Case]
> > We as creatures find the orderly
> > patterns. They are of no real significance as TITs. 
> 
>     Do you mean that orderly patterns and TITs are
> not significant?  I don't think that's what you mean. 
> Do you mean orderly patterns are not as significant as
> TITs?  This would be ranking, for what end, I don't
> know.
> 
> 
>     [Case]
> > Order is important to us because we have purpose and
> > meaning in our lives
> > and Order is a feature of this. But there is no
> > trumping going on. No
> > ranking other than what we assign. Assigning Value
> > is something that occurs
> > in experience as the MoQ would have it. 
> 
>     ok
> 
>     [Case]
> > Order is a form of Chaos. They are not two different
> > things.
> 
>     Oh, so here maybe you answered my above
> questions.  Yet, what other forms of chaos are there? 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > [Case]
> > > Metaphysic for me is a search for ideas that
> > transcend any particular
> > disciple.
>  
> > [SA]
> > Does this mean, all current disciples are
> > unsatisfactory?
> 
> 
> > [Case]
> > No, why would you say that?
> 
>     First off, I don't think you mean disciple, maybe
> discipline?  If you did mean the former, then I was
> thrown off by the comment.  If you do mean discipline,
> then by metaphysics, your saying it is trying to
> transcend.  Transcend is to get away from, or beyond. 
> What is metaphysics trying to get beyond?  If
> metaphysics is always trying to get away, transcend,
> and go beyond, when will metaphysics be satisfied?
> 
> thanks.
> 
> dim light, blue faint sky, browns,
> SA
> 
> 
> 
> 
_______________________________________________________________________
_____________
> Cheap talk?
> Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates.
> http://voice.yahoo.com
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>