[MD] Catching up to Pirsig

[MarshaV]

Platt,

Does RMP specifically use the word 'progress'?  Is freedom always 
progress?  From what point-of-view?


Marsha



At 09:11 AM 4/14/2009, you wrote:
>Hi Marsha, KO, DMB, et al:
>
>The big thing missing from current evolution theories and applications is
>any notion of things getting better or, as we MOQer's believe, progress
>towards greater freedom and versatility. It has always bothered me that
>precious little attention is paid to ever expanding consciousness over time
>from the first little wiggle of life to the worldly mind of a Mozart or an
>Einstein. In other words, science, totally dependent on measurable surface
>data, has largely been unable to deal with the steady evolutionary
>expansion of interior awareness, the real indicator of Dynamic progress,
>"Are you better off as a woman than a mouse?" The MOQ answer: "You betcha."
>That's progress!
>
>Platt
>
>
>
>
> > At 06:33 AM 4/14/2009, you wrote:
> > >Hi Marsha,
> > >
> > >i think religion still has more control of humans than science - can
> > never
> > >measure really - but look at the wealth and influence of the Catholic
> > church
> > >let alone Christianity as a whole and then the other religions.
> >
> > Hello KO,
> >
> > Science is defining and restructuring everything,
> > everything from sex to food, from medicine to
> > economics.  Theistic religions have very little
> > control of science.  The fact that theism is
> > forced to use ID as a proof of god makes it look
> > like science is on top.  And the fact that if you
> > even question the reigning axiom, evolution, you
> > are called a heretic.  What is wrong with this picture?
> >
> >
> >
> > >Also - evolution is a fact - with a theory on top. I cant put into words
> > but
> > >i think there is something so fundamental in Darwins observations that
> > they
> > >will remain unchanged except for enhancements.
> >
> > Evolution is a static pattern of value.  You
> > _think_ the patterns you are exposed to.  It
> > seems the modern cultural glasses have a thick
> > evolutionary tint coating them.  Geeeeeezzzz.
> >
> >
> > Marsha
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >2009/4/14 MarshaV <marshalz at charter.net>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > DMB,
> > > >
> > > > I am not sure I disagreed with Krimel, but suggested that his was one
> > way
> > > > to look at it.
> > > >
> > > > I think there is a danger of overlaying the evolutionary-pattern on
> > > > everything that wiggles in front of Science.  Like all theories, it
> > will be
> > > > outlived by a better theory.  There seems to be two religions wanting
> > to
> > > > orchestrate patterns these days, theism which is the weaker, and
> > Science
> > > > which is the stronger and totally subsidized and supported by the
> > state and
> > > > corporate structures, and science has domain
> > > over every aspect of our lives.
> > > >  I think it was Andre, that has used 'dust in the wind' as a very good
> > MOQ
> > > > metaphor, static patterns are like dust, DQ is like the wind, and
> > all
> > > > patterns, and that includes theories, are dust in the wind.
> > > >
> > > > William James and Alan Watts were both very good men.
> > > >
> > > > It's a pleasure to disagree with you for a change, David.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Marsha
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > At 06:45 PM 4/13/2009, you wrote:
> > > >
> > > >  Krimel said to Marsha:
> > > >> ...the explosion of new applications of evolutionary theory that you
> > cite
> > > >> is clear evidence of the dynamic quality of the theory. It is
> > static
> > > >> patterns that often give rise to ever more interesting examples of
> > dynamic
> > > >> quality. For example language is entirely
> > > composed of static pattern and yet
> > > >> out of it grow that infinite generativity of speech and writing. It
> > is in
> > > >> fact the presence of static patterns that
> > > give rise to ever more astounding
> > > >> examples of dynamic quality.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> dmb says:
> > > >> Hey, here's something marvelous and rare. I agree with you. The
> > explosion
> > > >> of applications isn't just evidence of the dynamic quality of the
> > theory,
> > > >> though. It is also evidence for the theory of dynamic quality. I
> > mean, the
> > > >> fact that evolutionary theory can be applied so widely supports the
> > MOQ's
> > > >> expansion to include literally everything. As the old SNL fake news
> > joke
> > > >> shows, the process of evolution operates differently in areas
> > outside
> > > >> biology. "The world's leading evolutionary biologist died today...
> > And was
> > > >> replaced by a larger, stronger evolutionary biologist." Or to use
> > your
> > > >> example, words themselves don't strive to
> > > survive by tooth and claw and yet
> > > >> the theory can be adapted to language. Some
> > > scientists already describe the
> > > >> unfolding of the physical universe in terms of evolution and they do
> > so, I
> > > >> suppose, without any help from the MOQ. Seems like things are
> > generally
> > > >> moving in that direction and the diversity of applications will
> > probably
> > > >> continue to grow.
> > > >> In a Alan Watts podcast I heard recently, he explained that the East
> > and
> > > >> West are divided by a difference in their
> > > basic conceptions of how the world
> > > >> came to be. We in the West have what's called a "ceramic" conception
> > of
> > > >> creation, where inert stuff is shaped or made as a potter does. God
> > is the
> > > >> creator and we are among the created things. You know, Adam was made
> > from
> > > >> the dust. In this conception reality is a collection of artifacts.
> > Made by
> > > >> who and for what purpose? In the East,
> > > reality isn't a collection of nouns.
> > > >> Its a verb. Creatures aren't made. They come into being through
> > action,
> > > >> through processes in which they are actors. Reality is a dance, not
> > a
> > > >> structure. It comes to be from within, so to speak, rather than
> > being
> > > >> manufactured by something outside itself. I
> > > mention this because I think the
> > > >> MOQ's expansion of evolution to include literally everything fits
> > more
> > > >> comfortably with the Eastern conception. Imagine Darwinism in that
> > context
> > > >> and that'd be close to the what the MOQ is saying. Or so it seems to
> > me.
> > > >>
>
>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/

.
_____________

Shoot for the moon.  Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars.........
.
.