[MD] Chance v. Dynamic Quality

[Platt Holden]

> From: Platt Holden <plattholden at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [MD] Chance v. Dynamic Quality
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Date: Friday, March 13, 2009, 4:34 AM
> 
> 
> > [Krimel]
> > I agree completely here. It seems to me that Platt and dmb are
> attempting
> > to
> > read choice and intention into even the inorganic level. I don't see
> how
> > this differs from theology in the least. Platt sneers a chance but at
> > least
> > acknowledges some kind of vague theological convictions. Dave, just
> > pretends
> > that whatever it is he is saying, it is not theology. 
> 
> Pirsig: "I think the answer (Are atoms aware?) is that inorganic objects
> experience events but do not react to them biologically socially or 
> intellectually.  They react to these experiences inorganically, according
> to the laws of physics." (LC, 30)
> 
> Guess that makes Pirsig a theologian. Yeah, right. 
> 
> 
> Paco:
>  
> William L. Lawhead summarizes: A.N. Whitehead opines that no entity in
> reality is devoid of subjective experience. Entities even at a very
> low  level are conected by feelings. They are active, feeling,  valuing
> subjects. Even though they have no conscious awareness, they respond to
> their environment and respond to it. Entities are "drops of experience."
>  
> I like the insight. Feelings are at all MoQ levels but in different
> degrees. 

Thanks. Like you I buy Whitehead's and Pirsig's views about the inner 
nature of nature that others either ignore or presume is inert. In fact, 
evolution is a lot more about the expansion of consciousness than growth in 
bone and tissue that the surface scratchers concentrate on. 

Platt