ROGER COMMENTS ON ALL THE GREAT CONVERSATION OVER THE PAST 3 DAYS
TO Horse, Platt, Pete, Glove, David, Rick, Bo and Ken.
To Horse:
Great post on chapter 13 and the for pointing out the ramifications of "all
other things being equal". Morality is not simple and clear cut as I found
with my messy morality charts in November, but the MOQ clarifies it better
than all the rest of the literature i have read on the subject combined!
To Rick and Glove and Pete on whether evolution continues:
I agree with Glove that the underlying levels continue to advance , but in a
new direction. The higher level develops originally to service the parent
level and only over time develops its own direction. As I discussed with Mary
last month, I believe it is important to notice that much of the higher level
is supportive of the level below, as well as that it is in opposition. I
think the 90 degree metaphor is quite appropriate.
The solar system continues to age, the universe to expand, the mountains to
crumble, species to go extinct and cultures to change. Pete’s comments on the
vast difference in time frame was also clarifying.
To David and Platt and Horse on Fundamental Consciousness:
Sorry I am so late, but I got behind on my typing and then my PC died. I agree
with David’s observations that the author stumbled all over quality and value,
and even on the beginning of a grasp of sq and DQ. I love seeing scientists
almost get the big picture, but then miss the significant metaphysical
foundation which lies at the base of their findings.
Though Platt insists on using ‘morality’ to describe all levels of quality ,
in a scientific paper it would be misunderstood. "Value interaction" IMHO is
actually the clearest way to express 'morality' and even 'quality', which I
see as carrying way to much cultural baggage.
The concepts expressed here run parallel to the recent discussion Bo and I had
on the Santiago theory of cognition (Varella and Bateman, who are quoted in
the article are the major influences to the book I referenced -- Capra's' Web
of Life'.) Horse is reading it , I believe.......any feedback?
Oh, the Buddhists that are referenced as being the origin of this way of
thinking are represented by Nishida who started the Kyoto school of philosophy
to merge pragmatism and Zen at the beginning of the Century. Nishida sounds a
lot like Bo and Platt too on connecting awareness and the universe as
necessary parts of the whole. We keep running into related influences here.
To Bodvar on Nishida’s "An Inquiry Into The Good":
Thanks for the comments. I agree that Lila is the breakthrough , Nishida does
take similar (though less clarified) concepts in some great new directions.
You are also right that Nishida was way ahead of his time. In fact, if I had
read him first, I would have tossed the book out. Lila gives the metaphysical
foundation needed to make everything fit together. Though, come to think of
it, Lila helps make sense out of every science and sociology book I have
read in the past 10 years.
I am rereading Nashida and studying it like I did Lila when I first found
Pirsig's masterpiece so many years ago.........Remember the feeling?
To Clark:
You have made me laugh so hard over the past week with your boar and your
brick. Thank you. I could not find better entertainment than the LS anywhere.
Roger
MOQ Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:51 BST