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

Sat Nov 14 12:59:29 PST 2009

Hi X Acto,

If what we mean by created is that there was purpose, this is just
an anthropomorphic concept, which comes from our biological nature.
The term emergence is perhaps more accurate.  What you describe below,
ron, is the basis for Taoism; that is there is continual fluctuation.  This may
appear to have direction, but can also seen without direction.  This does not
mean that there are not certain laws of Nature (which I guess we are now
calling DQ), which fundamentally provide for emergence of a certain
kind.  It may also provide from submergence as well.  It would appear that
MoQ, in the metaphysical tradition, is providing a system to bring
emergence into the intellectual realm.  Of course this only diminishes it,
but with all metaphysics it provides a basis for contemplation and, indeed,
action.

If we assume there is direction and not continual emergence/submergence,
creation/destruction, cycles of being, then this notion emerges.  Such a
notion provides direction for future action, and indeed justification for action.
Free will implies that we are not victims.  This notion is indeed required for
emergence, since such a phenomenon requires action.  The personal direction
of such creation (if you will) depends on our views of reality.  From this it
can be said that MoQ is a concept which directs free will.  Choices are always
between things, A or B.  Choice C is not even part of the decision because it doesn't
fall into the direction demanded; it is outside the MoQ realm.

If we take MoQ to its ultimate projection, where do we end up?  Can we
perhaps determine at this time, through extrapolation, where MoQ is
directing us?

And, by the way, by stating our "emotional attachment to concepts",
you have hit the nail on the head.  Emotion creates intellect.

Cheers,
Mark

On Nov 14, 2009, at 8:47:34 AM, "X Acto" <xacto at rocketmail.com> wrote:
From:   "X Acto" <xacto at rocketmail.com>
Subject:    Re: [MD] MOQ and the Future: An Inquiry into Usefulness
Date:   November 14, 2009 8:47:34 AM PST
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Arlo,
Interesting subject matter, in the spirit of abstraction, the evidence of freedom
and free will is decay and death. Quality seems to be purposful in the basic
notion of desire. But for desire to be free, decay must "be".
The codependant arising of difference Ham mentioned.
(which he seems to have figured out in a airconditioner type system)
But out of all this, it occurred to me that a interesting metaphor for
DQ is undefined difference, I interpret from Marsha's position that difference
is co-dependant. But, it could also be seen as fluctuation of one phenomena
Which follows Pirsigs line of evaluation. Therefore distinction emerges from
the fluctuation of a single phenomena.To follow this through, fluctuation
simply is, no why, no how, questions are traps of their own asking that
lead one away into invention and abstraction in this sort of reduction.
Our culture tends to breed in the addiction of ultimate explainations
growing up in the myth of ultimate explainations, especially during the hey
day of the 40's and 50's when it seemed as if the ultimate answers were being
unlocked daily, and "progress" was a historical evolutionary fact, it's a small wonder
that the MoQ gets interpeted as it often does.
I think "addiction" to concepts is a good term to use. For it's the relation to these
concepts which define the "self". So when these concepts are attacked, the self
seems to be attacked, it's what defines their value ,the emotional attachment to
concepts.

-ron

----- Original Message ----
From: ARLO J BENSINGER JR <ajb102 at psu.edu>
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Sent: Sat, November 14, 2009 10:57:33 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] MOQ and the Future: An Inquiry into Usefulness

[Platt]
There's nothing to "justify." It's all there in black and white, plain as day. 

[Arlo]
You are saying that in LILA, its there and black and white, the support for
your assertion that the reason quarks evidence value preference is so "man" has
a recognizable cosmos?

Wow.

I suppose this holds true for everything? Or is there something that exercises
value preference NOT for the sake and glory of "man"?

[Platt]
Since you feel the need to "deconstruct" and spin it to reinforce your dogma of
creation-by-fluke, so be it. Far be it for me to dissuade you from your faith.

[Arlo]
I don't think I can name one rhetorical trick that is not in this beauty.
Kudos. One of the books. 

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/