[MD] Defining Art (was Churning Point)

[Margaret Warren]

I've been reading in the "is morality innate in the cosmos" thread and
I'm not quite sure if this discussion would work there, but 
I've been questioning this (about who says we're evolving)
for a while, so I thought 'what better group than to pose this question to'?

Who says that any static/dynamic quality shift is taking us to 
a 'better' state...maybe it's just state changes without any
embellishment.

in a computer, the electrons that create the charge between
layers of silicon in integrated circuit chips don't know if
the state they are in (binary, O or 1) is any better or worse...
they might have their own sense of quality (i.e. as in my VERY limited
understanding of quantum physics) - but are they
'evolving' or just going back and forth from one state to another.

Maybe we are just like that charge...we go back and forth from
one state to another and all of this human behaviour we argue about
is really fairly irrelevant...it would be like the electron arguing
about the ethics of being in a computer. 



-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of Heather Perella
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 11:30 AM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] Defining Art (was Churning Point)


Hello Margaret Warren,


     You said:  "...who says we actually have to be
'evolving' at all?  Can't we just move from the static
to the dynamic back to the static again relative to
time moving (i.e. our perception of time progressing
from past to future) - something like just breathing?
Static to Dynamic, Static to Dynamic, Static to
Dynamic. 

I just read a definition of 'evolve' which says: 'to
develop or achieve
gradually'. To me, both of the terms: develop and
achieve imply something 'better' - more advanced,
greater, etc."


     Yes, I like how you pointed this out.  This is
very interesting.  I never really looked into the
difference that Dynamic and Static might be trying to
put across, rather than the old evolving concept of
more advanced, etc...   This is also in the scientific
field of natural history where Stephen Jay Gould says
how could we say evolution is a gradual bettering when
most life on earth (98%  or so) is bacteria, and if
our concept of becoming better or life evolving
towards something better includes what has
traditionally been called Humankind as a pinnacle in
the evolution of life on this earth this cannot be. 
Why?  Because what has worked and lived here on this
planet for most of time and has been able to evolve
into many different forms to exist in many nooks and
crannies far more abundantly and enduringly than
humankind is bacteria.  So what is better is a
relative term.  
     This idea of Static becoming Dynamic becoming
Static again and universals are kept while some forms
of art are still becoming (becoming what who knows?)
as you said "like breathing" fits into a rhythm nicely
with what Ham, David, and I are trying to discuss in
'Is Morality Innate in the Cosmos?'  Not exactly the
same subject, but the rhythm... that is something to
notice.

Thanks,
SA

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.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/

-- 
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.0.0/266 - Release Date: 2/21/2006
 

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.0.0/268 - Release Date: 2/23/2006