[MD] Just coincidence?

[Peter Corteen]

Arlo, thanks for your lengthy response.

I think you are right that the ultimate process ontology cannot be known;
our experience will always be partial, and our 'a priori' conventions,
without which we cannot communicate, think  or even have awareness, I see as
similar to the mathematical axioms in Godel's proof of the existence of
unprovable mathematical facts. Like a Zen monk struggling with 'mu' I cannot
resist considering and reconsidering the process - perhaps I should start
'sitting' again, but I don't want to end up in cave on the side of a
mountain!

 I also agree that dynamic quality can have no will or aim for the residual
patterns that form in it's wake; Jung's famous line comes to mind - 'if the
creator were conscious he would have no need to create conscious beings'.  I
wonder if Ham's creator has will or consciousness?

Agreed: 'Man' is more capable than the other animals but is still only
another animal.  It's easy to see why a lot of people can't get it out of
their heads that 'man' has a divine destiny; this idea goes hand in glove
with the belief that 'man' is "God's" favourite and that 'man' has a soul
but the other animals don't. It is however due to our inheritance  that  we
are better able to divine than the other animals. We collectively need to
recognise more our ability to shape our own destiny  instead of unwittingly
handing over responsibility to an imagined 'God'.

Just echoing and reflecting on what you said Arlo.

Regards

Peter