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

[plattholden at gmail.com]

Glad to see after loads of muddled verbiage and misquoting of what I 
said you acknowledge a creative evolutionary force in the universe such 
as Pirsig describes:

"The force of evolutionary creation is contained by substance. 
Substance is just one kind of static pattern left behind by the creative 
force." (Lila, 17)  

This creative force, DQ, precludes your nihilistic idea that the universe  
evolved as the result of dumb luck, or miraculously "emerged" from a 
kind of pseudoscientific pantheistic poker game.

So you agree with me, finally. Would be manly of you to admit it,  but 
I'm not holding my breath.


On 15 Nov 2009 at 10:46, ARLO J BENSINGER JR wrote:

> [Platt to Steve]
> There's no evidence it is some sort of higher intelligence or acts in accord
> with a predetermined plan. 
> 
> [Arlo]
> This is actually good to hear. When you said that quarks value things in order
> to make the cosmos recognizable to man, it leaves little room for anything BUT
> a "predetermined plan". I mean, how else could you explain that billions and
> billions of years ago, quarks acted in the best interest of "man"?
> 
> In saying the above, whether or not you will admit it, you actually admit
> agreement with me. We are here not by some "plan", but by "chance". We are here
> as the emergent result of billions of years of "responses to Quality". You
> cannot escape the probability that we would not be here, our presence was never
> certain. 
> 
> Given this, I am not sure why you feel it is more in line with the MOQ to say
> "Quality created the MOQ" rather than "the MOQ emerged from Pirsig's responses
> to Quality". Can you not see where the former removes "freedom" and "Bob" from
> the equation, the latter preserves both. And it does so without implying that
> there is any "plan" or greater force that created the MOQ. 
> 
> Again, take the statement "Quality created carbon atoms". It denies any free
> value preference to the subatomic particles, the very value preference the MOQ
> is built upon. In the same way saying "Quality created the Mona Lisa" removes
> any free value response from the artist.
> 
> Also given this, I am glad to see you've finally accepted that the MOQ is
> emergentist, an AHA! metaphysics, and that DQ is unexpectedness, and with this
> unexpectedness is the acceptance that "we" are here by "chance", a ratched AHA!.