[MD] Catching up to Pirsig

[MarshaV]

Hello  Platt,

At 12:01 PM 4/14/2009, you wrote:
>[Marsha]
> > It seems the sun has gotten hotter, and colder, and the earth
> > adjusted both ways.
>
>Don't you believe the sun will eventually die out like other stars?

Does it really matter what I believe?  The sun may or may not die.  I 
do not know.



>[Marsha]
> > And of course humans are a part of the world,
> > but so were dinosaurs.
>
>Yes, and they died out giving life a lesson in survival leading to human
>beings with the ability to fend off an errant meteor and eventually escape
>this planet for a better one.

Curious story with an interesting interpretaion, but just that, a story.



>[Marsha]
> > There are probably as many opinions about
> > purpose as there are stars in the sky.
>
>Yes, but purpose is built into the universe. Life is living proof.

Can life be objective about life?  Otherwise, nice story.



>[Marsha]
> > I cannot think that your
> > opinion is truer than mine.  Since opinions are static patterns of
> > value, none are absolutely true.
>
>Which means your assertion about none being absolutely true isn't
>absolutely true.  As for opinions, some are better than others, like
>paintings in a gallery.

Absolute truth is found when you discover that something is false, 
otherwise, nice story.

Once upon a time there was a beautiful princess...



Marsha



> > At 11:14 AM 4/14/2009, you wrote:
> > >Marsha,
> > >
> > >I don't consider humans apart from the world. On the contrary. They are
> > >very much part of earth as well as the universe, being structured from
> > >inorganic and biological patterns. That's why it has always amused me
> > when
> > >a scientist denies the universe has no purpose while at the same time
> > her
> > >purposeful life makes her denial a lie. To put it another way, I wonder
> > >what her purpose might be in stating the universe has no purpose. Such
> > >statements are as self-refuting as, "There are no absolutes." As for
> > Gaia
> > >its days are numbered because the sun will eventually burn out. By that
> > >time humans will have had to find a way to populate other planets or
> > they
> > >too will be history. But just as life discover strategems to overcome
> > >physical and chemical forces, I'm confident it will find a way, by
> > >responding to DQ, to survive the earth's eventual demise.
> > >
> > >Platt
>
> > > > Platt,
> > > >
> > > > Betterness from the point-of-view of 'this world' as compared to the
> > > > betterness of DQ's total freedom?  Is this the betterness
> > > > missing?  Well you may be correct.  There doesn't seem to be any
> > > > consideration for stability in most of the scientific drive for
> > > > economic progress.  I like better James Lovelock's Gaia
> > > > point-of-view, which says that in the end Earth will survive as it
> > is
> > > > a self-correcting system.  Mr. Lovelock is also optimistic in
> > > > thinking that there will be humans that survive too.  And the Gaia
> > > > hypothesis seems more like the MOQ interrelationship between static
> > > > and dynamic forces.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Marsha
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > At 10:21 AM 4/14/2009, you wrote:
> > > > >Marsha,
> > > > >
> > > > >"But static patterns, nevertheless, provide a necessary stabilizing
> > > > force
> > > > >to protect Dynamic progress from degeneration. Although Dynamic
> > > > Quality,
> > > > >the Quality of freedom, creates this world in which we live, these
> > > > patterns
> > > > >of static quality, the quality of order, preserve our world.
> > Neither
> > > > static
> > > > >nor Dynamic Quality can survive without the other." (Lila, 9)
> > > > >
> > > > >Does this passage answer your question?
> > > > >
> > > > >Platt
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > 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
>
>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.........
.
.