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

[markhsmit at aol.com]

Well said John.  And it more than fun, it's a grand adventure.  Slice it
and dice it as much as you want, you are missing the whole point.
There is something going on outside our ability to catalogue.  I
feel it everyday, here it in songs, see it in paintings.  

Mark

Conversely though, to assume that your philosophy obviates any possibility
f a God, is equally a religious taint upon free enquiry.   A philosophy
hat has value is one that helps you select between religious stances based
pon sound reasoning.  A philosophy that despises all religious thinking at
he outset because of valuistic reasons is completely out of step with the
ass of mankind from the start.  And too statically dogmatic for MY taste
or sure.
I like dwelling in a cosmos where its an open question.  where it's not
onclusively demonostrable one way or the other, but the open possibility is
lways before me that magical forces of good, spirits, angels, deities just
ossibly *might* be lurking around the corner, interacting with me at odd
oments outside of my capture or control.
it's fun.




-----Original Message-----
From: John Carl <ridgecoyote at gmail.com>
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Sent: Mon, Nov 16, 2009 11:50 am
Subject: Re: [MD] MOQ and the Future: An Inquiry into Usefulness



Oh my word.  I didn't realize how far this thread has carried and now I'm
umpin' in the waters for sure.
Lookout!  CANNONBALL!!!
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 4:37 AM, ARLO J BENSINGER JR <ajb102 at psu.edu> wrote:
> [Mark]
 I don't see how by using a different word you are changing anything.  I
 agree
 that emerged is a better word, but it is no more precise than the word
 bestowed.

 [Arlo]
 I disagree. Words/labels always carry some degree of imprecision, but there
 are
 better and worse terms. In this case, "emerge" is better than "create"
 since
 "create", as an active verb, implies an agency/intention/deliberation/etc
 onto
 its subject.


ohn]
Yeah and I got a similar with problem with "emerged".  It seems to me
raught with fantasy conjecture and connotation stemming from psychological
otivation to have an explanation - like a baby's head emerging from a womb.
But who can prove that emergence ever occured?  Perhaps the whole
uality/Cosmos continuum has always existed in current form with no
merge-ancy needed.
The true facts we have before us is simply the whole enchilada as it is now,
s postulated - the Quality/Cosmos continuum.  There might be good words to
escribe its history, there might be better words.  But the fact that it is,
s enough for metaphysical beginnings.  Is, is enough.  Although to avoid
onfusion I guess I could throw Ham a bone and call it "esse".  Sigh.
Essense is enough.  Happy Ham?
I have a similar issue with Biocentrism, which avers that the cosmos is *
aused* by animal consciousness, which I find problematic, rather than the
osmos/animal consciousness arise together in tandem, are intertwined and
utually co-creative.  Which I prefer.
My take on all the rest of this, you've heard before.  That Quality doesn't
reate the cosmos any more than gravity creates mass.
Oh.  Wait a minute.  Gravity does create mass.  Without gravity, there'd be
o mass.  Without Quality, there'd be no cosmos.
Get it?
An ineffable force that pulls things toward betterness as empirically
vident as gravity playing the stars.


 This is why the MOQ is well characterized as an "AHA!" metaphysics. DQ
 points
 to the unexpected, the unplanned, the uncertain, while SQ points to the
 value-recognition inherent in the cosmos in response to this
 unexpectedness.
 I'd even accept Platt's mostly moronic derision of "oops" if he'd realize
 that
 saying the MOQ is "Oops/AHA!" is the "essence" of this metaphysical
 foundation.
 (Or even "Oops/Bleech!" if you wanted to highlight the converse).

 Indeed, since Pirsig (originally) liked triads, you could characterize the
 MOQ
 as "Oops/AHA!/Ahhhhh...." "Oops"- the unexpected, AHA!- the free value
 response
 to this. Ahhh... - the "latching" of this.


John}
Oops/AHA/ahhhh....I like it.  Good one Arlo.  I see you have a bit of poetry
bout your soul, you  atheistically evil acerdemic you.
Ahhh...  equals peace of mind - which becomes a statically held latchpoint.
AHA equals enlightenment of the moment, in the struggle to reconcile
onflict.
Oops equals not only accident, but error and conflict.
The dialectical process proceeds exactly like that.  Eventually any oops
ill become an ahhh... and any ahhh... will one day turn into "oops!"
What drives this rotation?  Not gravity, Arlo.  Quality.

 [Mark]
 The universe did not emerge in response to Quality, the universe emerged
 with
 Quality (imo).  In this way one does not give Quality God-like powers.


John]
I started a new thread on this issue of philosophy and religion, which I
aven't posted quite yet, but in short I think that it is important to keep
eligion and philosophy separate.  If that's Arlo's main beef, then I concur
ith him.  You can't enquire into values when all your values are controlled
y religious conceptions of a priesthood of some kind.
Conversely though, to assume that your philosophy obviates any possibility
f a God, is equally a religious taint upon free enquiry.   A philosophy
hat has value is one that helps you select between religious stances based
pon sound reasoning.  A philosophy that despises all religious thinking at
he outset because of valuistic reasons is completely out of step with the
ass of mankind from the start.  And too statically dogmatic for MY taste
or sure.
I like dwelling in a cosmos where its an open question.  where it's not
onclusively demonostrable one way or the other, but the open possibility is
lways before me that magical forces of good, spirits, angels, deities just
ossibly *might* be lurking around the corner, interacting with me at odd
oments outside of my capture or control.
it's fun.
oq_Discuss mailing list
istinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
ttp://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
rchives:
ttp://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
ttp://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/