Hi Joe, I agree that morality is a good way to use the concept of evolution. Now, do the laws of evolution shape morality, or is it the other way around? Does the river create the banks, or do the banks guide the river?
Cheers, Willblake2 On Aug 4, 2009, at 2:11:53 PM, "Joseph Maurer" <[email protected]> wrote: From: "Joseph Maurer" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [MD] The case for an Uncreated Source Date: August 4, 2009 2:11:53 PM PDT To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> On 8/3/09 10:31 PM, "markhsmit" <[email protected]> wrote: [Willblake2] > The trouble with the evolutionary lens, is that it is one-sided. > Evolution proposes growth through change (perhaps directional), > on an unchanging backdrop. With our short lives this is imaginable since > we do not experience the ever changing non-biological universe. > However, that backdrop is forever changing. Since it appears > that everything changes, the basic forces (gravity) are also "evolving", and > indeed time is also changing. Biology changes in time to the changes > of the planet, which changes in time to the changing forces, which change > in time to time. All this change is simply an endless dance, and what > a waltz it is. > > This is probably not clear, but it's the dilemma I see. Once one > becomes aware of the ever changing of everything, the idea > of a beginning kind of loses its importance. Rather than directional > evolution, I find it more satisfying to view it all as endless > transformation. Hi Willblake 2 and all, [Joe] Imho the strength of directional evolution is ³morality!² Pirsig saw that when the individual is clearly examined, DQ, undefined evolution, is a necessary descriptive element for understanding. We do not hesitate to judge people. SOM cannot make that judgment since in a statement of SOM the S is undefined, and there is no personal hierarchy save religion for morality only social morality. Morality other than law is DQ individual morality, evolution. Society has murdered the wrong people in some cases. In our times War is the proper social adjustment to anarchy. [Joe] I can be sentenced to death for my actions. If there were no DQ we could know nothing about an individual¹s sense of responsibility. I know you don¹t like ³individuals² they are too dynamic! For morality there has to be an acceptance of undefined evolution. AN INQUIRY INTO MORALS! Joe > The trouble with the evolutionary lens, is that it is one-sided. > Evolution proposes growth through change (perhaps directional), > on an unchanging backdrop. With our short lives this is imaginable since > we do not experience the ever changing non-biological universe. > However, that backdrop is forever changing. Since it appears > that everything changes, the basic forces (gravity) are also "evolving", and > indeed time is also changing. Biology changes in time to the changes > of the planet, which changes in time to the changing forces, which change > in time to time. All this change is simply an endless dance, and what > a waltz it is. > > This is probably not clear, but it's the dilemma I see. Once one > becomes aware of the ever changing of everything, the idea > of a beginning kind of loses its importance. Rather than directional > evolution, I find it more satisfying to view it all as endless > transformation. 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/
