Hi Marsha, First of all, I don't think evolution is a driving and directional force. Secondly, brutality is a man-made value. Thirdly, I don't know how brutal man was a million years ago.
A better question would be "How does Quality allow man to be the way he is" Mark On May 28, 2009, at 11:55:26 PM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: Mark, The answer reached is, more or less, guaranteed by the method and questions asked. Ask a quantum question, get a quantum answer. Here's a question for you: After millions of years of evolution, why is man as brutal as ever? Marsha At 02:47 AM 5/29/2009, you wrote: >On May 28, 2009, at 11:16:41 PM, [email protected] wrote: >Hi Mark > >On 27 May you wrote: > > > The "I" has no name, because it does not exist. You can call me Mark. > > All the same to me. > >But most of us are encumbered with names and other paraphernalia >;-). > > > Matter and energy are identical in the same way that water, ice, and > > steam are identical, just different forms of the same thing. I don't > > understand why this is a schism since it is thought to be internally > > consistent. Matter is compressed energy living in time, light is > > timeless. What we feel with the nuclear bomb, or the sun, is that > > conversion. Part of the equation for time dilation becomes zero very > > quickly. Particle decay is a slower process of the same thing. Please > > explain your understanding of the schism, does it relate to Quality? > >I found your energy example a good analogy of a MOQ "bone". In >physics there is the split between "free" and "compressed" energy, >there is no ENERGY as such except these two states. But so many >sees Quality as different from MOQ's Dynamic Quality. Pirsig himself >is just vague enough to keep it suspended, in one instance he has >said that Quality is the DQ - which is correct, but then in his Summary >he says that Quality is "dynamic" while MOQ is "static", a Quality/MOQ >"metaphysics" in other words. > >Bo before: > > > If two beams of light meet, then the relative speed between the two > > > must be twice that of light .... or?. I'm a bit rusty on Relativity and > > > don't remember, no trap. > >Mark: > > Time is zero for a photon, so relative to one photon, the other one is > > moving at the speed of light, and visa versa. From our viewpoint, > > the diminishing distance between two photons would occur at twice the > > speed of light. This is not part of relativity, because that > > diminishing distance is not moving. However, this concept does have > > some potential for metaphysical thought, thanks for that. > >Back in the sixties I knew (read at least) all about relativity and I >remember what a kick this about time being "elastic" gave me. Then >came the seventies when Quantum Physics became the fad and gave >no lesser kicks. Not to speak about the eighties when experiments >confirmed the various weird consequences. For example the "Aspect" >one about two particles "communicating" instantly across the universe >if necessary. Here the speed of light is no limit. Do you know anything >about these issues? > >Bo > >Hi Bo, > >I learned about these things in school. Now I like to read about >them because they send >me off on a metaphysical journey of the mind. Entangled particles >are really interesting >because it almost means they are the same particle in two different >places. Whatever >happens to one particle, happens to the other far away in an identical manner. > >The notion of Quality was of interest because it seemed to imply, to >me, an entanglement >of sorts. Kind of this spooky connectivity. This probably doesn't >make much sense, but >I originally approached it from physics. Kind of like The Tao of >Physics, or the Dancing >Wu Li Masters, which I read all at about the same time in '74 or '75. > >Physics is getting pretty bizarre, at least the implications. I >recently read a book about the >Physics of Consciousness, whereby consciousness enters our mind right at the >synapse in the brain, through quantum tunneling. It was full of >measurements and >predictions, and possibilities for better understanding. It was >understood that consciousness >was outside the realm of science because it could not be measured or >detected. >The book was written by a physicist who has a following among >physicists. This kind of struck >me as a possibility for Quality. I know that Quality is outside all >that, but sometimes it is >interesting to consider that pre-conscious connection as something >that could be >actually used by our next evolution. > >Cheers, >Mark > > > > > > > >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/ . _____________ The self is a thought-flow of ever-changing, interrelated and interconnected, inorganic, biological, social and intellectual, static patterns of value responding to Dynamic Quality. . . 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/
