[MD] Defining Art (was Churning Point)

Margaret Warren carma at carmapro.com
Sat Feb 25 08:55:54 PST 2006 

I guess what I mean is that talking and sharing and art and
collaboration and communicating ideas to one another and talking
about ethics and so on are all of the things that cause us as beings to
shift back and forth between states - sometimes individually and sometimes
as a group, but that one state of being is not necessarily more evolved than
the other. In my head, I picture it as if I were looking down at a bed of
seaweed in an tide pool...flowing back and forth with the waves and the
tidal action and the action
of each strand of seaweed pushing and pulling against each other. 

How many of us talk about the Peloponesian war today. I'm not saying that I
don't have personal opinions about Iraq and our government, I just wonder
that 
if we step back away from this immediate present and see it as an
abstraction,
will it be a defining moment to us a human beings or would it have just been
a change from one state to another. 

I do believe that what matters in the moment of course is how much suffering
we are experiencing and inflicting on each other in this moment. I know I'm
kind of shifting over into the barbarian attack thread...

I would have a VERY different reference point if right now my home town had
helicopters constantly flying over head, tanks and armed soldiers walking
down
the street, regular sounds of bombing, shooting - doesn't matter what side
your on. It's different to consider war from our cozy home office computers
looking out onto a relatively calm yard or street not having to be
constantly aware of war
all around me. 

MM








-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of Heather Perella
Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2006 10:15 AM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] Defining Art (was Churning Point)


Margaret,

     Yes we could be bouncing around like electrons,
yet, we do talk about ethics.  They could be
irrelevant, but for the time being wars and peace are
decided upon these irrelevant things.  Maybe someday
down the path we just begin to bounce around and don't
talk of ethics and maybe this thing we call ethics are
taking us upon a scam road and ethics is a hoax that
distracts us from what we really should be doing which
is bouncing around like electrons.  Maybe we are all
confused because ethics is taking up so much of our
energy when meanwhile we could be just bouncing around
like electrons seemingly thoughtlessly.

I don't know if this is what you were trying to say or
not?

SA

--- Margaret Warren <carma at carmapro.com> wrote:

> 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
>  
> 
> 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/
> 

__________________________________________________
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: 268.1.0/269 - Release Date: 2/24/2006
 

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.1.0/269 - Release Date: 2/24/2006

More information about the Moq_Discuss mailing list