> From: Platt Holden <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [MD] Chance v. Dynamic Quality > To: [email protected] > Date: Friday, March 13, 2009, 4:34 AM > > > > [Krimel] > > I agree completely here. It seems to me that Platt and dmb are > attempting > > to > > read choice and intention into even the inorganic level. I don't see > how > > this differs from theology in the least. Platt sneers a chance but at > > least > > acknowledges some kind of vague theological convictions. Dave, just > > pretends > > that whatever it is he is saying, it is not theology. > > Pirsig: "I think the answer (Are atoms aware?) is that inorganic objects > experience events but do not react to them biologically socially or > intellectually. They react to these experiences inorganically, according > to the laws of physics." (LC, 30) > > Guess that makes Pirsig a theologian. Yeah, right. > > > Paco: > > William L. Lawhead summarizes: A.N. Whitehead opines that no entity in > reality is devoid of subjective experience. Entities even at a very > low level are conected by feelings. They are active, feeling, valuing > subjects. Even though they have no conscious awareness, they respond to > their environment and respond to it. Entities are "drops of experience." > > I like the insight. Feelings are at all MoQ levels but in different > degrees.
Thanks. Like you I buy Whitehead's and Pirsig's views about the inner nature of nature that others either ignore or presume is inert. In fact, evolution is a lot more about the expansion of consciousness than growth in bone and tissue that the surface scratchers concentrate on. 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/
