[MD] MOQ and the Future: An Inquiry into Usefulness

[plattholden at gmail.com]

I think (I suspect others do also) that you protest too much. Two short 
sentences from Lila sink your arguments:

"The force of evolutionary creation isn't contained by substance.. 
Substance is just one kind of static pattern left behind by the creative 
force." (Lila, 17)


On 14 Nov 2009 at 10:52, ARLO J BENSINGER JR wrote:

> [Platt]
> Of course you don't. You only see what supports your neoscientific
> Qualipantheism.
> 
> [Arlo]
> I am looking for the best interpretation as evidenced by the totality of his
> thoughts, not just one select quote to "prove" he uses the word "create" in any
> specific way.
> 
> As I said, when you say "Quality created carbon atoms" it REMOVES the dynamic
> freedom, the experiential response to Quality for those subatomic particles. It
> makes them "pawns" in the enacted plan of Qualigod.
> 
> If you hold that there is freedom, ever WAS freedom, at the lower levels, then
> this entails a "chance" that they would NOT have acted the way they did. If
> they had no "choice", they were not free. If they were "free", they had a
> "choice". Once you allow for this freedom, you introduce "oops" (or better,
> AHA!). If you eliminate "oops", you eliminate freedom.
> 
> Let me ask it this way. Did DQ create LILA? Didn't Pirsig? Didn't LILA emerge
> from the total experience of Pirsig within his unique social history? If DQ
> "created" it, then Pirsig was just a choiceless vessel. 
> 
> When Pirsig says, ""When inorganic patterns of reality create life the
> Metaphysics of Quality postulates that they've done so because it's "better"
> and that this definition of "betterness" -this beginning response to Dynamic
> Quality-is an elementary unit of ethics upon which all right and wrong can be
> based." (LILA), this use of "create" synthesizes exactly with the DQ/SQ
> experiential foundation of the MOQ. 
> 
> It says, Quality does not "create" anything, things appear as a result of
> responses TO Quality. And as such there is always "freedom", always possibility
> to go in unexpected directions.
> 
> I mean, is not that precisely what DQ is? Unexpectedness?
> 
> If everything is ordered, created, planned, enacted, there is no
> unexpectedness, just the expected and deliberate unfolding of freedomless
> things being arranged by Quality.
> 
> So I look to the heart of the MOQ to see in what way "create" is best
> understood. And it is NOT to say that "DQ created LILA", but that "Pirsig
> created LILA in response to DQ". It may NOT have happened. And that is the
> beauty of DQ. 
> 
> [Platt]
> Only someone from the insular world of academia would glorify
> deconstructionism.  
> 
> [Arlo]
> Yeah, you are right. Only someone from academia would be interested in
> understanding something, rather than selecting acontextual quotes to support
> their agenda. 
> 
> [Platt]
> Transparent rhetorical device: inventing quotes. But, expected.. 
> 
> [Arlo]
> A Pee Wee! Since this is precisely what I just said to you! Nice!
> 
> Nonetheless, I'm not sure why you are wasting time trying to distort this away
> from what you said. I mean, I know why, its just sad.
> 
> Listen. In a planned and enacted world, there is no freedom. The MOQ is based
> on freedom, from quarks to mathematics. You keep harping about a world where
> things occur due to some willful plan, and I am saying to you that such a world
> is a dead world. AHA!, the MOQ, is alive and rife with possibility, potential,
> chance, oops and AHA!. Your world is devoid of DQ, is simply the ordered
> construction of Qualigod. 
> 
> As I pointed out, if you say that "man" is here not by chance, not by oops, but
> to serve some role in a "plan", then you deny that DQ was ever operational at
> any of the lower levels. Carbon atoms were formed not out of the value
> experience of quarks, but quarks being ordered into this arrangement to serve
> the plan of Qualigod.
> 
> And, even is you begin freedom with "man", YOUR personal existence is still an
> "oops", a cosmic accident, something that may or may not have happened. The
> only way to overcome that YOU are here by OOPS is to posit that everything
> leading up to YOUR existence was ordered precisely to create YOU.
> 
> And that, Platt, is NOT the MOQ. It may help you sleep at night, but I'd
> suggest a good Kentucky bourbon instead.
> 
> [Platt]
> We're still waiting for you answer explaining why, how and from what 
> this "value ground" of yours "emerged."
> 
> [Arlo]
> This "value ground" of "mine"??? You mean Quality? Didn't you read ZMM/LILA?? 
>