> [Krimel]
> The idea that life opposes the laws of physic and thermodynamics is just
> flatly absurd.
[Platt]
To assert something is "absurd" doesn't make it so.
[Krimel]
I would most humbly submit that it is incumbent on those who assert that the
laws of physics have been violated to document the violations. My tired eyes
have looked but seen no evidence for such claims. Perhaps you could remove
the scales that obscure the obvious to me and enlightening me to these
violations so that I may beg pardon for my impudent utterance.
[Platt]
Krimel never heard of sun stroke which can happen regardless of food, water,
sex, supplies and Playboy bunnies. Once you suffer the stroke, the rest is
just a matter of time.
[Krimel]
I foolishly neglected to include the basic need for shelter and stupidly
assumed there was a shady tree giving a measure of shelter to our
beleaguered professor. I regret the omission and beg your indulgence to
provide him with some slim measure of protection from the elements.
[Platt]
Either way, back to inorganic compounds, i.e., death.
[Krimel]
Sadly such a fate awaits us all. But I await your superior insight on how
this invalidates to claim that sunlight gives us assurance that the laws of
thermodynamics are never-the-less preserved in this scenario.
[Platt]
To assert an intentional stance destroys precision doesn't make it so. Nor
does the word "precision" mean anything here.
{Krimel]
Again I apologize for assuming you know more about such things that
apparently you do. If you could grant more than two sentences to clarify the
degree of your misunderstanding, I might be in fuller possession of the
tools to bring greater harmony to our discourse.
[Platt]
Krimel thinks DQ is any change, ignoring what Pirsig says about DQ being
a "moral force." The above illustrates the constant battle between the
inorganic and biological moral levels.
[Krimel]
As my equally incompetent colleague Case used to say if you define better as
better it just gets better and better. Still as your lowly servant I would
suggest that defining a moral force into existence by ignoring its
unpleasant aspects is simply choosing to wear blinders. But as one who sees
from loftier heights than I, could you show me where these unpleasantrys go
when we define them away or what we are to make of them in your visionary
thinking?
In my shallow thoughts, life seems an accommodation of biological processes
to inorganic conditions. But please help me to remove these rose colored
glasses that blind me to the struggle.
> [Krimel]
> This ignores the fact that as often as not, what evolution is running way
> from is DQ itself.
[Platt]
No, running away from and/or fighting inorganic forces.
[Krimel]
If one were to succeed in fleeing from these evil forces where would one be.
Clearly you are more knowledgeable about being disconnected from reality
than I. Please amuse yourself by helping me to join you in such a state so
that that I too may be worthy of higher grade pharmaceuticals than are
presently at my disposal.
[Platt]
The whole chapter explains what science cannot. It also answers the
question science ducks -- "Why survive?"
[Krimel]
Pray, do tell me what in this chapter poses as an explanation. How in your
esteemed view does it correct the inadequacies of the consensus of those
across the globe who devote their lives specifically to the study of such
questions?
As I have done each time you pose this question I will foolishly suggest
that we survive because we are the progeny of creatures who valued survival.
How from your superior vantage point could it be otherwise?
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/
