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

[X Acto]

John, 
what is betterness?



----- Original Message ----
From: John Carl <ridgecoyote at gmail.com>
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Sent: Mon, November 16, 2009 3:27:33 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] MOQ and the Future: An Inquiry into Usefulness

On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 7:54 AM, Arlo Bensinger <ajb102 at psu.edu> wrote:

[Arlo]
>  The thing I will point out, however, is that "God" is not a metaphor for
> "DQ", BOTH are metaphors for the undefinable. And in this sense, I ask not
> only which term makes a better metaphor, but given the MOQ's metaphor what
> does that entail as a explanation.
>


Good point, almost.  I'd say that God is a metaphor created by humans in
response to DQ.  DQ is that pull toward betterness that drives men to make
metaphysical explications of reality.



It also denies that the cosmos was somehow created "for" man, what Platt's
> comment about quarks exhibiting value preference in order to make the cosmos
> recognizable by man. As stable patterns of value emerged from "beginning
> responses to Quality", conflict did not always favor the path of "greater
> freedom". Nor does it now.
>

  Man is part of the cosmos, they arise mutually, co-creatively and always
together.  That's just the way it is.  All the rest is speculation, fantasy
and imagination.  Our only task is asking what is Good about this
speculation vs. that speculation.  Preferring  "emergence" over "creation"
is ok.  Affirming one as true over the other is not.


>
>
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/