hiya monkeys, time and space, being static patterns, are abstracted from the eternal omnipresent. all past and future is here now; each point contains the entire universe (i am assuming that people get this, otherwise i will have to write a lot more).
teilhard de chardin understood this and it helped him shape his orthogenetic theory of evolution. put simply, it is the idea (also favored and eloquently related by terence mckenna) that an attractor 'pulls' evolution towards it - towards an 'omega point' in de chardin's terminology. as i have said this is entirely logical if you understand the relative nature of time and space. the best way we can interrogate evolution is existentially - as this provides us with the most empirical data. 1)do we evolve? 2)how does it happen? 1) yes. i am sure that i have changed over the years - i have gained knowledge, experience, a little wisdom i hope. in short i feel more complete and sufficient in myself than say 10 years ago. 2) through suffering. suffering is the negative face of quality. it forces us to comprehend the why of suffering and through that understanding integrates it within a larger conception of the self. evolution is the topic du jour. we are accelerating through an evolutionary bottleneck which is predicted to culminate in dec 2012. the current climatic, economic and personal instability are symptomatic of this period of rapid change.... and things will change more rapidly as we reach the end of this age - mckennas timewave zero study of the i ching is very interesting in this regard. i see the end of the mayan 5th age (the end of time) as being an awakening of jung's collective unconscious - which is the same thing as de chardin's noosphere, or the gaian mind. jung always said that synchronicity was natural time - which again complements the idea of an end to (psychological) time. remember what the word evolution actually means (how often is the answer we seek right in front of us i wonder?) - UNFOLDING. it is an expansion - an expansion into awareness of what already exists but is hidden. cheers g --- On Thu, 16/4/09, Krimel <[email protected]> wrote: From: Krimel <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [MD] Catching up to Pirsig To: [email protected] Received: Thursday, 16 April, 2009, 10:38 AM dmb, Sorry about the previous blank message; my thumb hit the stupid pad on the laptop and it went crazy. I usually leave it turned off. Anyway I would have responded earlier but it took the EMTs awhile to restart my heart after reading that you sort of agreed with me. I have always thought this is an important point. The MoQ does add a metaphysical underpinning for evolutionary theory. Both are about how stability arises and persists in the face of dynamic change. Or to put it more boldly how Order arises from Chaos. This is the most basic and fundamental theme in both the Mythos and the Logos. The reason evolutionary theory is so pervasive and crosses so many disciplines is that it addresses this theme. This is what gives evolutionary theory its elegance, beauty and power. I am always disappointed when Chapter 11 comes up because in it Pirsig shows he does not appreciate the power of evolutionary thinking nor how the MoQ really serves to enhance it. His focus on betterness and acceptance of a teleological account of evolution contribute mightily to keeping the MoQ on the fringe. Pirsig's errors on the other hand are not in the same ballpark as Wilbur's acceptance of intelligent design. I too am attracted to the Eastern emphasis on process rather that things. But I still have to admit that I get a better understanding of this from Whitehead than from Eastern writers. When I read Eastern works I feel like I am eavesdropping. It's kind of like I am attracted to the Jewish religion but I could never really be a Jew. That is something you have to be born into to really understand. In addition the more I read of Eastern thinking the more I see that like western thinking there are factions and subtexts and internal arguments and that any characterization of "Eastern Thinking" is as much an over simplification as talking about "Western Thinking". Both are rich enough and diverse enough to resist being lump together as one entity. Krimel ____________________________________________ 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. 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/ The new Internet Explorer 8 optimised for Yahoo!7: Faster, Safer, Easier. 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/
