WB2, Marsha and Platt (and Krim), I think I'm with you too, (except for the word "will" Platt).
The natural tendency to progress (the telos in the MoQ) is not consciously directed (by any willful agent) it's just nature at work. The cosmos as a whole proceeds faster down the entropy gradient, thanks to pockets of highly developed self-organization consuming and degrading its potential energy by ever more ingenious means. It started as soon as quantum became aware of gravity and probably before, but we run out of metaphors - turtles will do. Marsha (I've not been concentrating for a few weeks) what explicitly did you mean by the reference "science wars" in the 1990's ? My starting point (before the turn of the millennium) was that the "scientific" view had become too dominant in all walks of life - a thoughtless and all-too-easy knee-jerk instead of quality thinking. (But here scientific is "bad science" - over-simplified science for the mass media and social and other pseudo-sciences.) I see the "faith wars" of recent times as a backlash to this bad science of the last two or three generations - since Copenhagen. Regards Ian On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 2:34 PM, Platt Holden <[email protected]> wrote: > > [Willblake2] >> Hi all, >> >> Let me first say that I carry the burden of scientific >> training, Ph.D. and all. That means full indoctrination. >> >> I read, below, scientific facts thrown about as though they >> were truths. The earth is 5 billion years old! Did you measure >> this, or are you parroting somebody's opinion? Oh, it has >> been proven. Please explain to me that proof. Is it all based on >> assumptions? Science is a convention, that seems to provide >> some predictability to our lives. That predictability comes true >> simply because the cause and effect are supporting each other, >> like a closed logical circle, no other reason. 1 + 1= 2. What does >> that mean? Absolutely nothing more than a convention. Neuronal >> firings that are shared amongst people. The more people that >> have similar neuronal firings (or patterns), the more meaningful >> it seems to be. Why? Because we like company. >> >> It is my opinion that science describes that which is considered >> outside of us; this includes the brain as described by science. >> Spirituality describes that which is within ourselves. It is my belief >> that which is within is much greater than what is outside. (It could >> also >> be said that the world we create is within (and I don't mean within >> the brain)). The "rules" for describing spirituality are very different >> from the rules of science. There is no cause-effect. If we could >> transmit >> feelings directly (no thoughts or words in between) it would be >> much easier to convey spirituality. Instead we are left with >> the scientific (logical) tool of language. >> >> Science has sacrificed that within for that outside. For every >> word concerning experience in English, there are forty in Sanskrit. It >> is >> because of this obsession with that which is outside, that we >> find no real meaning or satisfaction or truth. How could there be? >> Science has taken much away. There is no balance. >> >> It seems that the more detailed we make this outside, the more >> dominant it becomes, until it is all. What an illusion! >> >> The real war is between that which is within, and that which is outside >> (without). >> >> I think this has something to do with MoQ... >> >> Willblake2 > > I'm with you Willblake2. The cosmos exhibits an inner will to be better. > That's the message of the MoQ. > > 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/ > 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/
