[Arlo] Again, this is only problematic from a S/O dualistic position, and one that tries to equate the phrase "better" with a socio-intellectual "human" valuation of events. Of course, few humans would conclude that asteroid demolishing our biosphere is "better" than "not", but those inorganic patterns of the asteroid are moment-by-moment responding to what is inorganically "better" for them to do so.
[Krimel] Frankly I am only interested in about two generations out from here. That is about a far as anyone can project "betterness" and actually mean anything by it. Is all of human history aimed at helping a stranded Talfamadorian order parts for his space ship? Do I care about the greater good resulting from planetoid collisions? If betterness involves some cosmic scheme where in we go extinct so that cockroaches finally get their turn I say phooey. That's no better than having a drunken Thunder God. [Arlo] You say you don't artificially separate out "man" from "the world", but I see this an an unavoidable outcome of placing man as different not in degree but in form from the cosmos. In this case positing that man is uniquely "moral" in an "amoral" cosmos. [Krimel] Despite the taint of Wilber the term noosphere does capture something of what I mean. God, higher consciousness, purpose are outgrowths of emerging from us. They are not drawing us forward. They are not inevitable. They are not preexistant. They are growing out of the expanding collective story we are telling. 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/
