[MD] The origin of spin(murdering MOQ?)

[Heather Perella]

     [x]	
> This all hits hard in the visualization area for me
> too but, it all
> seems to work like a perpetual motion model
> Not unlike a 3d fractile geometry where the answer
> becomes part of the
> equation and so on into infinity only with plasma
> density. I discovered a link that refered to electro
magnetic
> entropy, since I'm
> not a physicist it would  explain better
> Than I
http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/jag8/double.html

     I checked out the cite, and still don't get
electro-magnetic entropy.

     [x]
> I just think
> that it's arrogant to think that humans are the 
> Culmination toward an evolved ultimate betterness of
> value...

     What is better?  If the MoQ does mean this, which
I understand Pirsig refers to betterness as
'following' dq, but I don't get this betterness when a
rock is dq.


     [x]
> ...and folly to believe MOQ is is based on moral
patterns of value
> to an end.  And-Here-we-go, on this aspect alone,
what makes the
> MOQ any different
> than neoplatonism in this regard? I ask Matt,and a
> few others, "that MOQ
> Values, Values". It is moral, it implies a
> heirarchtical "moral"
> universe.

     Stephen Jay Gould, a well-known scientist came up
with a hierarchical evolutionary level paradigm, but
Gould explains in detail that their are more bacteria
than human beings, so, who is surviving better.  Gould
also explains how hierarchical doesn't imply the kings
and peasants of old it is one of complexity and
geological time.  This is the persective I had when I
read Pirsig's levels.  The meaning of hierarchical, as
Gould explains, has baggage, and why its' use I can't
remember, and don't find the why to be very important
to look it up right now.  I do know Gould uses the
hierarchical levels in an unorthodox way, which isn't
surprising since Gould spoke a lot about unorthodox
views that are to be perceived to understand the new
data science has to offer.  The meanings of words
change throughout time by the way.

     [x]
> As a previous thread noted it is a small
> gap from MOQ to
> theism, easily breached by the right mind and
> exploited likewise.

     This is why dq is important.  When a rock is dq
the door is open for poetry, science, paintings, and
all kinds of stories about rocks, none, that stick by
the way, even the rock itself will change.


     [x]
> As I mentioned before, MOQ seems to be more of an
> adjustment for correction
> than a full fledged metaphysics, it's more like the
> "Hadith" to the
> Quran as khaled mentioned.
> A mental orientation to approach SOM. But I could be
> wrong,.....

     I don't understand the need to lug a concept,
like SOM, around.  It's takes effort and is heavy. 
When I put it down and just walk or sit I don't need
to say this is S, O, or divide, and try to figure out
if I'm right or wrong.  I mean the S could actually be
an O.  Why not just a tree, and as for the divide, I
can walk to the hemlock in the woods and touch the
rough bark.  Hypothesis after hypothesis, after
hypothesis... empty the tea cup, and pour another cup.
 White tea, green tea, black w/mint tea... taste,
health, enjoyment.

thanks.

snow, hot tea, hmmm comfort after a trek in the woods,
SA


 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Cheap talk?
Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates.
http://voice.yahoo.com