Hi Dan Exactly, the MOQ and Robert Pirsig accept evolution, problem is evolution is not compatible with anthropocentrism or experience seen as an idealistic prison, so maybe reading these errors into the MOQ is very bad philosophy I am suggesting. Thanks for the concern, can assure you the only thing that has broken down is a very poor conception of what the MOQ is saying.
All the best David M Dan Glover <[email protected]> wrote: >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 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
