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

[plattholden at gmail.com]

On 14 Nov 2009 at 13:23, ARLO J BENSINGER JR wrote:

> [Platt]
> "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)
> 
> [Arlo]
> This says nothing whatsoever to any point I made.

The point you made is Quality doesn't create anything. Do you see the 
words "creation" and "creative" in the above quote? What do you think 
he's talking about, public housing? 

> But I can see where you want to avoid the dialogue. Shame, really, because I
> think you could really learn a thing or two.

Dialogue with you? Learn something from you? You missed your calling 
as a comedian.  

"Although Dynamic Quality, the Quality of freedom, creates the world in 
which we live, these patterns of static quality, the quality of order, 
preserves our world." (Lila, 9) 

Obviously you see in the MOQ only what you want to see.

The rest of your blathering here just repeats what you've said 
erroneously a half dozen times before. 


> The MOQ is emergentist. It is not creationist. Quality does not create
> anything. Patterns (SQ) emerge as a free value preference in response to DQ. 
> 
> Saying "Quality created carbon atoms" or "Quality created the book LILA" is not
> only sloppy, but destructive to the message of the MOQ. Saying these things
> removes "freedom" from the equation.
> 
> If you posit, as you do, that "man" is not here by "chance", that our presence
> is the result of some "plan" or deliberate orchestration by Quality, then you
> have effectively removed the entire meaning of the MOQ from your words. If
> everything was planned out, then there was no freedom. 
> 
> Indeed, as I said, Dynamic Quality IS the unexpected. It IS the unplanned,
> unorchestrated, indeliberate. Dynamic Quality IS freedom from "plan".
> 
> The moment you introduce freedom into the mix, you introduce uncertainty,
> probability AND improbability, possibility and chance. THAT is the beauty of
> the MOQ. It is why the MOQ is AHA!.
> 
> Its too bad you'd rather resort to ad hominem attacks on me and the "evil
> academy" rather than expanding your understanding. I do understand how
> comforting it must be to think the entirety of the cosmos was deliberated just
> to produce "you", but that is not a MOQ view, it is a theistic view, Qualigod.
> 
> "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)
> 
> Right there is a use of "create" that preserves the freedom at all levels of
> the MOQ to respond (or not respond) in certain ways. "Creation" occurs as
> things respond to Quality. Quality does not "make them" do anything. It does
> not order, orchestrate or coordinate them with some "master plan" in mind.
> 
> And this freedom, this inherent "AHA!" at every level of the MOQ, from billions
> and billions years ago to the present moment, is the power of all this. But
> that freedom brings unexpectedness into the mix. It says "maybe this will
> happen, or maybe that will happen, or maybe nothing will happen". There is no
> guarantee things unfolded as they did. At every step along the way was the
> unexpected AHA! of DQ, latched into what we perceive to be stable patterns of
> value.
> 
> I am sorry you'd rather attack me, then take the time to understand this.