Magnus,
>>> >>> >>> Yes, I do see what you mean. There is this huge urge to do so. Have it >> all >> under control, that is. But its interesting when so much energy is >> expended >> upon an ultimately futile task, don't you think? >> > > But it's *not* futile. We don't have to have *everything* under control. We > just have to make it static enough so we can learn something from the > experiment. > > My point Magnus, was the futility of having it ALL under control. The "everything", as you point out is the bug-a-boo. And it is a big one. My mind flashes to Howard Hughes living in his penthouse, surrounded by Mormons and paranoid about germs. The human mind, when it gives itself over to this emphasis on control, goes overboard. Khoo's video posting to me illustrated this point well with Siddhartha's realization of a Middle Way. > Also, I think a computer shows pretty well that it's not futile either. As > long as it works, and a computer can work for a pretty long time, it *is* > static. > > Right. It's static enough for our uses. Human needs for information evolve much faster than computer memory wears out. Someday, I'd like to explore the relation between staticity and human psychological needs and tendency to over-attaching. Often we need to be weaned from our attachments and the crucial issue is timing. Too soon and we starve (psychically, too late and we become over invested. Because the penalties for over-attachment are nebulous (not maturing) and the penalties for weaning are concrete (starvation) the pragmatic results of the equation tends toward over-attachment. It takes something outside of our selves to break this equation. Here is where an idea or belief in DQ helps tremendously. Thanks Magnus, John 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/md/archives.html
