At 06:33 AM 4/14/2009, you wrote:
Hi Marsha,
i think religion still has more control of humans than science - can never
measure really - but look at the wealth and influence of the Catholic church
let alone Christianity as a whole and then the other religions.
Hello KO,
Science is defining and restructuring everything,
everything from sex to food, from medicine to
economics. Theistic religions have very little
control of science. The fact that theism is
forced to use ID as a proof of god makes it look
like science is on top. And the fact that if you
even question the reigning axiom, evolution, you
are called a heretic. What is wrong with this picture?
Also - evolution is a fact - with a theory on top. I cant put into words but
i think there is something so fundamental in Darwins observations that they
will remain unchanged except for enhancements.
Evolution is a static pattern of value. You
_think_ the patterns you are exposed to. It
seems the modern cultural glasses have a thick
evolutionary tint coating them. Geeeeeezzzz.
Marsha
2009/4/14 MarshaV <[email protected]>
>
> DMB,
>
> I am not sure I disagreed with Krimel, but suggested that his was one way
> to look at it.
>
> I think there is a danger of overlaying the evolutionary-pattern on
> everything that wiggles in front of Science. Like all theories, it will be
> outlived by a better theory. There seems to be two religions wanting to
> orchestrate patterns these days, theism which is the weaker, and Science
> which is the stronger and totally subsidized and supported by the state and
> corporate structures, and science has domain
over every aspect of our lives.
> I think it was Andre, that has used 'dust in the wind' as a very good MOQ
> metaphor, static patterns are like dust, DQ is like the wind, and all
> patterns, and that includes theories, are dust in the wind.
>
> William James and Alan Watts were both very good men.
>
> It's a pleasure to disagree with you for a change, David.
>
>
> Marsha
>
>
>
>
>
>
> At 06:45 PM 4/13/2009, you wrote:
>
> Krimel said to Marsha:
>> ...the explosion of new applications of evolutionary theory that you cite
>> is clear evidence of the dynamic quality of the theory. It is static
>> patterns that often give rise to ever more interesting examples of dynamic
>> quality. For example language is entirely
composed of static pattern and yet
>> out of it grow that infinite generativity of speech and writing. It is in
>> fact the presence of static patterns that
give rise to ever more astounding
>> examples of dynamic quality.
>>
>>
>> dmb says:
>> Hey, here's something marvelous and rare. I agree with you. The explosion
>> of applications isn't just evidence of the dynamic quality of the theory,
>> though. It is also evidence for the theory of dynamic quality. I mean, the
>> fact that evolutionary theory can be applied so widely supports the MOQ's
>> expansion to include literally everything. As the old SNL fake news joke
>> shows, the process of evolution operates differently in areas outside
>> biology. "The world's leading evolutionary biologist died today... And was
>> replaced by a larger, stronger evolutionary biologist." Or to use your
>> example, words themselves don't strive to
survive by tooth and claw and yet
>> the theory can be adapted to language. Some
scientists already describe the
>> unfolding of the physical universe in terms of evolution and they do so, I
>> suppose, without any help from the MOQ. Seems like things are generally
>> moving in that direction and the diversity of applications will probably
>> continue to grow.
>> In a Alan Watts podcast I heard recently, he explained that the East and
>> West are divided by a difference in their
basic conceptions of how the world
>> came to be. We in the West have what's called a "ceramic" conception of
>> creation, where inert stuff is shaped or made as a potter does. God is the
>> creator and we are among the created things. You know, Adam was made from
>> the dust. In this conception reality is a collection of artifacts. Made by
>> who and for what purpose? In the East,
reality isn't a collection of nouns.
>> Its a verb. Creatures aren't made. They come into being through action,
>> through processes in which they are actors. Reality is a dance, not a
>> structure. It comes to be from within, so to speak, rather than being
>> manufactured by something outside itself. I
mention this because I think the
>> MOQ's expansion of evolution to include literally everything fits more
>> comfortably with the Eastern conception. Imagine Darwinism in that context
>> and that'd be close to the what the MOQ is saying. Or so it seems to me.
>>
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> Windows LiveĀ: Keep your life in sync.
>> http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_allup_1a_explore_042009
>> 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/
>>
>
> .
> _____________
>
> Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars.........
> .
> .
> 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/
>
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/
.
_____________
Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars.........
.
.
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/
