> At 03:27 PM 2/7/2009, you wrote: > >[MP] > > > While MoQ'ers may believe that MoQ has no place for God, god or even > g*d, > > > it > > > is not a very practical means of evolution even if infallible. The > first > > > human to > > > have the intellectual DQ spark that led to society would not have > been > > > worth her > > > weight in salt had she refused to work with those who hadn't yet had > such > > > a > > > spark. I'd wager she interacted with them in ways that led them to > > > innately > > > recognize the worth of her DQ event rather than present them with a > "my > > > way or > > > the highway" ultimatum. > > > >Good point. Such ultimatums also come from those who claim there is > only > >one right way to think. > > > >Platt > > Platt, > > Just for the record there are as many ways to think as there are > individual collections of of interrelated and interconnected, > inorganic, biological, social and intellectual, static patterns of > value responding to Dynamic Quality. But this collection does not > accept God, g*d, theism, or th*ism. And if Micheal cannot accept > that, I will not waste his time or bother him. > > > Marsha
Marsha: I have no argument that you individual collection does not accept what Michael's individual collection is saying. But my individual collection believes he is onto something important about the MOQ whose highest value is not static certainty but Dynamic openness. Platt 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/
