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

[plattholden at gmail.com]

On 15 Nov 2009 at 21:03, ARLO J BENSINGER JR wrote:

> [Ron]
> Seems to me you are splitting hairs as not to agree with Arlo about anything.
> Cutting off ones nose to spite their own face so to speak.
> 
> [Arlo]
> Heh. Yeah, I thought this too. You would think Mr. Freedom would understand
> that without "freedom" to create as a response TO Quality, there is no
> "freedom" in the MOQ, or rather there is no MOQ.
> 
> I think the reason Platt is schizo about being a "I'm-not-a-theist Theist" is
> that he finds a world where there was no greater reason for him being here
> scary. Certainly Quality had to create him for a purpose, even if it simply to
> antagonize Arlo. What's sad, is that if this IS the case, the MOQ is wrong.
> 
> Instead, the beauty of the MOQ is precisely the freedom to respond to DQ, the
> free value expression evident from the smallest quarks to the large patterns of
> intellect. And it is this "freedom" that denies any orchestration, any "plan",
> any act of "creation" by a "source".

"Quality, on which there is complete agreement, is a universal source of 
things." (Lila, 6) Arlo is beginning to sound more and more like Rigel 
every day.