Greetings, All:
First, I would like to say that I am new to this list and have been trying to
follow the flow of the discussion(s) as best I can. Unfortunately, I've
found this a bit difficult since I have had absolutely NO exposure to the
areas of philosophy (other than reading ZMM many times and Lila once or
twice--a bit murky on my initial exposures, I must say :) and whatever other
subjects in which the majority of you seem to be well versed. I would be
very appreciative if some of you could suggest where I might find information
to give me the much needed background education so that I might be better
able to digest and participate in your discussions.
Second, in spite of my unsatisfactory grasp of many of the ideas that are
mentioned in this group, I have a small observation to make regarding a post
from RISKYBIZ9@aol.com dated 12/16/01:
ROG:
You then go on to mention that "it is a Quality event when the cells of the
human body decay each seven years to make room for newer cells." It is? Is
it the decay and the bold, compassionate sacrifice of these little suckers
that is of quality? Or is it the regenerativeness?
The same argument goes for "revitalizing the environment" when dead,
destroyed, temporarily disordered creatures are recycled into patterns of
higher quality. The decaying isn't the quality event, the ensuing
reorganization is. Right?
RTG:
It seems to me that the "decaying" and the "ensuing reorganization" are
different phases of a continuous cycle, or more specifically, the decaying IS
reorganization. The difference seems to be that the agents of "decay" are
microbes while the agents of the "ensuing reorganization" are more complex
multi-cellular organisms. Why should one organism's method of reorganization
be determined to have more or less quality than that of another?
It occurs to me that the reorganization of matter by both organisms should be
considered to have similar quality assuming that both are descended from the
same original ancestor, albeit separated by a very long and twisted path of
genetic mutation (which, now that I think about it, is another type of
molecular reorganization). While both are very different biological
patterns, both are the survivors, the most recent versions of the same
original organism. The primary difference between the two types of organisms
seems to be one of complexity. Does more complexity necessarily indicate
higher quality? The microbe may well answer, "No," because it's pattern has
not had to undergo as many changes/corrections along the way; the microbe has
been happily doing its thing all along.
I look forward to any comments the group may have regarding my post and would
like to thank you in advance for any help you can give so that I may better
educate myself so that I might understand what the heck you people are
talking about! Best wishes and happy holidays...
Ryan (the Great ;-)
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:42 BST