Hi Ron I do not think the fact that change can be destructive helps much to understand the creative capacities this universe clearly exhibits. Back to the excluded middle again.
David M ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ron Kulp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 9:48 PM Subject: Re: [MD] Heads or tails? > > [David M] > You old skeptic, lucky you were not > around for the big bang, would you have > ever believed we could have got here? > > [Ron] > Our evolution is largely the result of geologic and cosmic fortune. A > celestrial impact or two, > and who knows? If the impact theorized to have wiped out the dinosaurs > would have never happened > I hardly think we'd be sipping tea and talking philosophy. What > happened? Did quality > Say nah, that's not what I wanted, I'm supposed to evolve into a > chemistry professor! > Yes David, I'm skeptical of the human minds ability to comprehend the > infinite. > I'm afraid this monster has no zipper on the back. > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ron Kulp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 7:28 PM > Subject: Re: [MD] Heads or tails? > > >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Krimel >> Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 1:22 PM >> To: [email protected] >> >> [Krimmel] >> I think Pirsig and certainly many of the MoQers do not really get how >> interesting this is. Note Pirsig's dismissal of the idea that the MoQ >> would be a metaphysics of randomness. Boy, he missed the boat by not >> running with that idea. >> >> {Ron] >> I agree, a metaphysics of randomness would be more accurate and would >> not elude >> To misinterpretation that the term "moral" may imply. Fact is we just > do >> not know. >> An inter-related system of dynamic value is about as close as we can > get >> >> On any sort of concept. I dunno, I get what others say about it but >> maybe it is my >> Preconception that makes me fidgety over "moral" or "betterness" >> ... I just have a hard time with the idea >> that this is all headed somewhere. 'Good' seems to me is what is most >> suitable for survival >> That which secures continuance in the value field as currently >> manifested. >> >> >> >> 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/ >> > > 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/ > 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/
