Hi Bruce, I like your analysis. However, I have something to say about the thermodynamic part which illustrates my observation that science has become a God.
Thermodynamics is a system in physics invented to describe observations. It is used to make predictions in the narrow reality that we perceive, but a man-made creation. So to paraphrase your "why does nature reverse this process" could also be stated as "why does nature not comply with an invention of man?" I think you'll see that the answer to this is simple. Nature created man, not the other way around. Because man invented a system that nature does not seem to comply with, does not mean that nature is going wrong, it just means that the system is lacking. One creates a system and then asks why it does not seem to apply is like saying all elephants are pink, and then saying that a grey one goes against reality, and forces some kind of metaphysical intervention to explain it. To ask such a question and then use it in a metaphysical argument only strengthens the notion that science is treated like a God; since nature is going against the divine in some way, there must be a metaphysical truth. The use of science, as in thermodynamics, to support Quality is somewhat lacking, there are many better ways. Mark Hello all, I hope that you don't mind me jumping in on this thread, but here it goes. Science: Science, in my opinion, ask a separate question than religion. Science asks,"how" and religion asks "why". However,one thing that folks want to do is to make science into a belief. IMO, science in merely a method devised at the intellectual level to ask "how" things are made, work, operate, etc. Science is not something to believe in, but a set of tool to explore. That said,it has become the "church of science",as Pirsig puts it, and has become something that people worship. Religion: Religion, on the other hand, firstly, attempts to look beyond the now into unknown world of "why", but where its rudderless obsessions of control, combined with ignorance, along with the thought "that man can know the mind of God" has placed it in categories of distrust and hypocrisy. Regardless of the fairy tales that have been created over the millennium, there exists the unknown that moves and organize things against the laws of nature. In MoQ we call it Dynamic Quality. The thing is, MoQ, at least, provides the possibilty, with argument, for "God" to exist by whatever name you want to give it. The purpose of religion should be to move life forward and to give man hope. Where faith comes in is in the hope that there is more to life than existance; I believe MoQ does that. The section below is from chapter 11 of Lila. "Thermodynamics states that all energy systems "run down" like a clock and never rewind themselves. But life not only "runs up," converting low energy sea-water, sunlight and air into high-energy chemicals, it keeps multiplying itself into more and better clocks that keep "running up" faster and faster. Why, for example, should a group of simple, stable compounds of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen struggle for billions of years to organize themselves into a professor of chemistry? What's the motive?... The question is: Then why does nature reverse this process? What on earth causes the inorganic compounds to go the other way? It isn't the sun's energy. We just saw what the sun's energy did. It has to be something else. What is it?... Dynamic Quality" Theist, Agnostic, Atheist: IMO, the only person without faith is the agnostic that does not search for the "truth". However, the one who searches for truth will always be disappointed as a theist or atheist unless he accepts the lies in either camp. The truth is somewhere in the middle and is found in the journey itself. MoQ is the closet thing that points to the truth that I have found. My graphical representation of this found on slide 20 of the ppt deck that I provided a couple of weeks back. Here is the link: http://www.thinnerself.com/files/MoQ/lila-6a.ppt Thanks, Bruce <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; mso-layout-grid-align:none; punctuation-wrap:simple; text-autospace:none; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language:EN-GB;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; mso-layout-grid-align:none; punctuation-wrap:simple; text-autospace:none; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language:EN-GB;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> ----------------- > [Mark] > OK, we are not speaking the same language. In my language, creationism was > created by the intellect. > > [Arlo] > "Creationism" was an attempt to turn a social pattern of thought into an > intellectual pattern of thought. > > [Mark] > Science is intellect masquerading as high Quality. > > [Arlo] > Science is an intellectual pattern. It does not need to masquerade as what it > already is. Are there low Quality intellectual patterns? Sure. Pirsig's > central > condemnation is that S/O intellectual patterns are of low Quality. > > [Mark] > Why would the intellect place itself above all else? > > [Arlo] > I believe regarding the formulation of the MOQ it was Pirsig would placed > intellect at the top of the static hierarchy. > > [Mark] > Oh, I forgot, you claim that science is not a belief, somehow it is real. How > did that happen? > > [Arlo] > Science is an intellectual pattern. It is not "faith-based" as is "theism". I > have no idea what you mean by "real", but I don't recall making any such > claim. > Both intellectual patterns (science) and social patterns (theism) are static > patterns of value. > > [Mark] > I remember the PC discussion. We can agree to disagree. > > [Arlo] > Of course. > > > > 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/ _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/196390708/direct/01/ 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/
