[MD] The MoQ.org STRANGLES Creativity

[Ham Priday]

Platt --

> I don't understand your question. First you say the universe is in
> balance and that changes at the macro level are predictable. But then I
> presume you agree that the universe has changed through natural
> evolution whose next creation is totally unpredictable.
>
> In any case, the question is, "Why evolve?" Is your answer based on
> natural or supernatural forces?

That a system is "in balance" does not mean that is fixed or "static", or
that it is incapable of change.  Evolution is what we intellectualize from
our space/time mode of experience as the continuous process of a dynamic
universe.  The theory of evolution and the laws that govern physical
behavior are the domain of Science, not Philosophy.  I don't think evolution
is relevant to one's behavior or the conscious values that drive it.  Value
is the essence of man; it doesn't depend on whether the natural world
evolves or not.

> As for evolution in history of human kind, surely you'll agree it's
> better to be alive today than it was in the days of the caveman. Do you
> not see any improvement in man's condition since then? To what do you
> attribute this progress?

Environmental improvement or "conditional enhancement" is a relative
concept.  I can't speak for the caveman as I've never been one.  But from a
utilitarian perspective, sure, man no longer has to hunt for food and is
able to use his time for more intellectual pursuits.  As a social creature
he can organize for common goals and communicate his needs and wishes to
others.  He's traded his cave for an air-conditioned domain that is
sheltered from the elements; he's afforded a free public school education
with the option of higher learning; he can ply his skills in an organized
work environment, use his earnings to purchase food, clothing and medical
services from his community, and entertain himself with the accoutrements of
technology.

Is he a "better" human being as a consequence of these conditional
improvements?  I can't honestly give you an unequivocal answer.  The
explosion of knowledge that has enhanced our comfort and enabled us to do
many things has also made life more complicated and human decisions more
critical.  We no longer risk being attacked by wolves or tigers; instead, we
confront the possibility of attack from unseen enemies, the threat of
nuclear or biochemical war, and assault by disgruntled radicals in our own
community.  Is this indicative of man's progress or evolution to "moral
betterness"?  What do you think?

I can see that the happy campers have parlayed your 'Individual Level' into
another pointless political debate.  When it gets to half-time, or if you
can fend them off, kindly answer my last question: How is the evolving
natural world responsible for creating better things and new ideas for
better living?  (Isn't that something DuPont used to do?)

Regards,
Ham