[MD] The case for an Uncreated Source

[Joseph Maurer]

On 8/3/09 10:31 PM, "markhsmit" <markhsmit at aol.com> wrote:

[Willblake2]
> The trouble with the evolutionary lens, is that it is one-sided.
> Evolution proposes  growth through change (perhaps directional),
> on an unchanging backdrop.  With our short lives this is imaginable since
> we do not experience the ever changing non-biological universe.
> However, that backdrop is forever changing.  Since it appears
> that everything changes, the basic forces (gravity) are also "evolving", and
> indeed time is also changing.  Biology changes in time to the changes
> of the planet, which changes in time to the changing forces, which change
> in time to time.  All this change is simply an endless dance, and what
> a waltz it is.
> 
> This is probably not clear, but it's the dilemma I see.  Once one
> becomes aware of the ever changing of everything, the idea
> of a beginning kind of loses its importance.  Rather than directional
> evolution, I find it more satisfying to view it all as endless
> transformation.
 

Hi Willblake 2 and all,

[Joe]
Imho the strength of directional evolution is ³morality!²  Pirsig saw that
when the individual is clearly examined, DQ, undefined evolution, is a
necessary descriptive element for understanding.   We do not hesitate to
judge people.  SOM cannot make that judgment since in a statement of SOM the
S is undefined, and there is no personal hierarchy save religion for
morality only social morality.   Morality other than law is DQ individual
morality, evolution.   Society has murdered the wrong people in some cases.
In our times War is the proper social adjustment to anarchy.
 
[Joe]
I can be sentenced to death for my actions.  If there were no DQ we could
know nothing about an individual¹s sense of responsibility.  I know you
don¹t like ³individuals² they are too dynamic!  For morality there has to be
an acceptance of undefined evolution.  AN INQUIRY INTO MORALS!

Joe

> The trouble with the evolutionary lens, is that it is one-sided.
> Evolution proposes  growth through change (perhaps directional),
> on an unchanging backdrop.  With our short lives this is imaginable since
> we do not experience the ever changing non-biological universe.
> However, that backdrop is forever changing.  Since it appears
> that everything changes, the basic forces (gravity) are also "evolving", and
> indeed time is also changing.  Biology changes in time to the changes 
> of the planet, which changes in time to the changing forces, which change
> in time to time.  All this change is simply an endless dance, and what
> a waltz it is.
> 
> This is probably not clear, but it's the dilemma I see.  Once one
> becomes aware of the ever changing of everything, the idea 
> of a beginning kind of loses its importance.  Rather than directional
> evolution, I find it more satisfying to view it all as endless 
> transformation.