On Wednesday 23 April 2008 5:59 AM Krimel writes to Ron, Marsha, Ham:
<snip> [Krimel] I agree that to the extent that the MoQ is broken, it won't be fixed by parsing parts of speech. But I think you are dead wrong about it's failing with regard to definition. The central undefined is the MoQ's greatest strength. It is a head on recognition that reality IS undefined. It IS uncertain at its core. Uncertainty and lack of definition is a _fundamental_property of the world of TiTs and the world we construct internally. <snip> [Krimel] The God that Dawkins finds acceptable is the God that Einstein, Weinberg, Sagan find acceptable. He is a pantheistic God. They all see in Nature an order and profoundly moving beauty. But it is not the cause or source. It is the result of Natural forces randomly working themselves out. It is new orders of beauty emerging as static patterns fall into constancy. In pantheism God is an infant growing up and out of the inorganic world. It is consciousness emerging from nature not causing and directing nature. God like everything else is not a Being but a Becoming. God's essence is emerging from his existence. <snip> [Krimel] My point is that we should not let our "craving" dictate our answer. The nihilist may believe that life is an accident of Nature but in that "Oops" we see "Aha!" Rather than looking for meaning in an external source we admit that we must find it for ourselves. Purpose is not the gift of some transcendent source. It is something we negotiate with our fellows and adopt as our own. The acquisition of purpose is a personal responsibility not a divine gift. You can hold out all you want and turn blue in the process. Or you can believe that purpose is external to you and take what you get. But in the taking you are making it your own. You can try to evade personal responsibility by buying into ancient tradition but it is a shallow move and I agree with Dawkins that it is a delusion. <snip> Hi Krimel and all, As I read the above, the power of your logic, Krimel, is impressive. For myself in speaking of the undefined, I propose two more levels for evolution which are levels in consciousness only. Bo¹s SOLAQUI is convincing to me. The Meta-level MOQ is undefined, and only found in one¹s awareness. A further level of consciousness, which I accept to account for the note Si (sidera), which I have no way of formulating, is as far as I can go. The absolute is beyond me, and any description of its essence is only by analogy, or denial. Joe On 4/23/08 5:59 AM, "Krimel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [Krimel] > My point is that we should not let our "craving" dictate our answer. The > nihilist may believe that life is an accident of Nature but in that "Oops" > we see "Aha!" Rather than looking for meaning in an external source we admit > that we must find it for ourselves. Purpose is not the gift of some > transcendent source. It is something we negotiate with our fellows and adopt > as our own. The acquisition of purpose is a personal responsibility not a > divine gift. You can hold out all you want and turn blue in the process. Or > you can believe that purpose is external to you and take what you get. But > in the taking you are making it your own. You can try to evade personal > responsibility by buying into ancient tradition but it is a shallow move and > I agree with Dawkins that it is a delusion. 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/
