Marsha,
I don't consider humans apart from the world. On the contrary. They are
very much part of earth as well as the universe, being structured from
inorganic and biological patterns. That's why it has always amused me when
a scientist denies the universe has no purpose while at the same time her
purposeful life makes her denial a lie. To put it another way, I wonder
what her purpose might be in stating the universe has no purpose. Such
statements are as self-refuting as, "There are no absolutes." As for Gaia
its days are numbered because the sun will eventually burn out. By that
time humans will have had to find a way to populate other planets or they
too will be history. But just as life discover strategems to overcome
physical and chemical forces, I'm confident it will find a way, by
responding to DQ, to survive the earth's eventual demise.
Platt
> Platt,
>
> Betterness from the point-of-view of 'this world' as compared to the
> betterness of DQ's total freedom? Is this the betterness
> missing? Well you may be correct. There doesn't seem to be any
> consideration for stability in most of the scientific drive for
> economic progress. I like better James Lovelock's Gaia
> point-of-view, which says that in the end Earth will survive as it is
> a self-correcting system. Mr. Lovelock is also optimistic in
> thinking that there will be humans that survive too. And the Gaia
> hypothesis seems more like the MOQ interrelationship between static
> and dynamic forces.
>
>
> Marsha
>
>
>
> At 10:21 AM 4/14/2009, you wrote:
> >Marsha,
> >
> >"But static patterns, nevertheless, provide a necessary stabilizing
> force
> >to protect Dynamic progress from degeneration. Although Dynamic
> Quality,
> >the Quality of freedom, creates this world in which we live, these
> patterns
> >of static quality, the quality of order, preserve our world. Neither
> static
> >nor Dynamic Quality can survive without the other." (Lila, 9)
> >
> >Does this passage answer your question?
> >
> >Platt
> >
> >
> > > Platt,
> > >
> > > Does RMP specifically use the word 'progress'? Is freedom always
> > > progress? From what point-of-view?
> > >
> > >
> > > Marsha
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > At 09:11 AM 4/14/2009, you wrote:
> > > >Hi Marsha, KO, DMB, et al:
> > > >
> > > >The big thing missing from current evolution theories and
> applications
> > > is
> > > >any notion of things getting better or, as we MOQer's believe,
> progress
> > > >towards greater freedom and versatility. It has always bothered me
> that
> > > >precious little attention is paid to ever expanding consciousness
> over
> > > time
> > > >from the first little wiggle of life to the worldly mind of a Mozart
> or
> > > an
> > > >Einstein. In other words, science, totally dependent on measurable
> > > surface
> > > >data, has largely been unable to deal with the steady evolutionary
> > > >expansion of interior awareness, the real indicator of Dynamic
> > > progress,
> > > >"Are you better off as a woman than a mouse?" The MOQ answer: "You
> > > betcha."
> > > >That's progress!
> > > >
> > > >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/
>
> .
> _____________
>
> 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/
