Re: MD Cybernetics and sq evolution - Secondary ontology as harmony.

From: mark maxwell (laughingpines@yahoo.co.uk)
Date: Sun Oct 23 2005 - 01:57:34 BST

  • Next message: Platt Holden: "Re: MD Any help"

    Mark M,

    Scott:
    I doubt if Nagarjuna would have any difficulty with
    evolution. But I think he would regard that last
    statement as dubious, as assuming that evolution has a
    cosmic goal, and cosmic goals are idols.

    Mark 23-10-05:
    Right, so there hasn't been any progress in any sense
    whatsoever since the invention of writing.
    Only a tit would advance that idea.

    Scott:
    Its the locution "aiming for" that gets deconstructed,
    and it is certainly not concept-free.

    Mark 23-10-05:
    Locutus of Borg more like. Resistance to 'Scottalk' is
    futile. This thread was hopefully 'aimed' at
    discussing an MOQ description of cybernetics and the
    possibility of deriving identity from Universal flux.
    Fat chance when you're involved.

    Scott:
    "Dogma" just means "teaching", so yes, I would say
    that Nagarjuna expounds dogma, as does Pirsig, and as
    do I.

    Mark 23-10-05:
    It is the view imposed by authority which is regarded
    as dogma. The MOQ does not enjoy authority, but it's
    getting there.
    The only authority you enjoy is to bring utter
    confusion to any thread you happen to participate in.
    This thread is itself a prime example:

    Scott:
    But it is bad to base a metaphysics on it (DQ)

    Mark 23-10-05:
    This thread wasn't about your pet dislike of the MOQ,
    it was about discussing possible ways to advance it a
    bit more.
    Western universities attribute metaphysics to those,
    like Nagarjuna, who base them on emptiness, but that
    appears to have slipped your mind? However, if Pirsig
    does the same you get all huffy. Be consistent for
    heavens sake.

    Scott:
    No argument here, as you are saying that intellect
    implies value.

    Mark 23-10-05:
    Are you stupid?
    Intellect does not imply value in the MOQ, value IS
    intellect, period. Read Lila.

    Scott:
    Because from my point of view I am trying to help you
    to go forwards. There are materialist remnants in your
    thinking that, as I see it, are preventing that from
    happening.

    Mark 23-10-05:
    No doubt about it Scott. Please piss off quickly.

    Scott:
    Intellect is not 'made' of anything. It makes
    everything. To say that intellect evolved out of the
    same 'stuff' as rocks are made of is a remnant of
    materialism. All that has been done is to replace
    'matter' with 'value', and ignore some consequences of
    doing so.

    Mark 23-10-05:
    Value makes everything. Do me a great favour and never
    contribute to any posts of mine again. Please?

    Scott:
    Does to me too. Why aren't you happy with it? Better,
    explain how you define 'idealism' such that what I say
    is idealism but the MOQ isn't (assuming you think it
    isn't).

    Mark 23-10-05:
    Get lost immediately.

                    
    ___________________________________________________________
    To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    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 2.1.5 : Sun Oct 23 2005 - 02:45:39 BST