Hello everyone On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 4:57 PM, David Morey <[email protected]>wrote:
> Hi MOQers > > Does SQ and DQ act to give us evolution and create professors > long before anyone ever gets around to coceptualising these > qualities in human experience? The guy who wrote Lila > seems to think this: > Dan: Come on, David. No one is saying that the MOQ denies evolution. What a completely crazy thing to say. > > "The law of gravity, for example, is perhaps the most ruthlessly static > pattern of order in the universe. So, correspondingly, there is no single > living thing that does not thumb its nose at that law day in and day out. > One could almost define life as the organized disobedience of the law of > gravity. One could show that the degree to which an organism disobeys this > law is a measure of its degree of evolution. Thus, while the simple > protozoa just barely get around on their cilia, earthworms manage to > control their distance and direction, birds fly into the sky, and man goes > all the way to the moon. > A similar analysis could be made with other physical laws such as the > Second Law of Thermodynamics, and it seemed to Phaedrus that if one > gathered together enough of these deliberate violations of the laws of the > universe and formed a generalization from them, a quite different theory of > evolution could be inferred. If life is to be explained on the basis of > physical laws, then the overwhelming evidence that life deliberately works > around these laws cannot be ignored. The reason atoms become chemistry > professors has got to be that something in nature does not like laws of > chemical equilibrium or the law of gravity or the laws of thermodynamics or > any other law that restricts the molecules' freedom. They only go along > with laws of any kind because they have to, preferring an existence that > does not follow any laws whatsoever." > > Clearly DQ and SQ can be used to tell a cosmic story that is pre-human > experience and is not in an anthropocentric prison. > I suppose the usual suspects will claim they were never making > anthropocentric restrictions about such reasonable knowledge. > If only they were not so confused in the first place. Funny how post > modernists like Matt used to get blown off, now that the > MOQ seems to have turned into a form of anti-realist post modern > philosophising round here. What a shame, can anyone > help to save the MOQ from this terrible fate? Is quality not real? If only > DQ is real and DQ cannot be defined how can there > be truth, SQ can be judged but apparently it is not real as it is not > experienced. Yet Pirsig embraces truth. What has gone wrong > since I was last here? Dan: I am unsure what your problem is--perhaps you are suffering a meltdown; those things have been known to happen here--but it is apparent us talking is doing no one any good. Thank you and good luck, Dan http://www.danglover.com 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
