From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Mon Sep 01 2003 - 19:27:37 BST
Hi
A thought, has anyone read Jeremy Narby's The Cosmic Serpent? It seems to me
that his revaluation of Darwin is very similar to Pirsig's in Lila,
essentially he re-thinks the idea of a purposeless evolution, and shows how
this scientific dogma is inadequate and questionable. In MOQ it should not
be on the agenda, where evolution has to contain dynamic quality and value
and pushes in the direction of adding dynamic quality to static patterns as
developed. Although I am interested in Arthur M Young's suggestion that from
light/photons to particles to atoms to molecules, DQ is reducing to produce
the hard objects realm of everydau reality and molecules but once DQ has
become very bound/statically constrained it then heads back in the direction
of more DQ in the form of plants, animals, man, and man's activity:
social,intellectual.
DM
----- Original Message -----
From: "Platt Holden" <pholden@sc.rr.com>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 3:52 PM
Subject: MD Seeing Reality as Values
> Hi All,
>
> Comments in recent posts in other threads prompt me to start a new one.
>
> Bo:
> I "fall back" on speaking of subjects and subjectivity and objects and
> objectivity while keeping the overall MOQ "outlook" in mind.
>
> Paul
> What I'm suggesting is that by focussing observation on value and its
> manifestations (from quantum probability all the way through to
> economics to metaphysics etc.), it may be possible, in principle, to
> "measure" evolution in an entirely novel, yet more empirical way. This
> then avoids the evolutionary argument over "which came first?" by
> shifting the question to "which is more Dynamic?" Anyway, just a
> thought really, a purely hypothetical illustration of how seeing the
> world as value instead of substance might change basic premises of
> arguments.
>
> Platt says:
> Paul gives us a concrete example of how Bo's "MOQ outlook" works in a
> pragmatic way. In the history of this site we've had much discussion of
> what the MOQ means, but precious little about how it can change the
> meanings of our experiences. Paul's illustration is a case in point; by
> using the MOQ value perspective, evolution takes on a wholly different
> meaning.
>
> I think it would do us all good to know how others see the world
> differently as a result of using MOQ spectacles. It's been hard for me
> to switch from my trusty old SOM spectacles where A causes B to the MOQ
> perspective of B prefers condition A. I suspect others are in the same
> boat if for no other reason than so few concrete examples of how the
> MOQ changed one's personal worldview have been presented.
>
> So I appeal to all to share ways they now look at the world as a result
> of being persuaded by the MOQ compared to SOM ways, using Paul's
> illustration above as a model. In other words, the more specific, the
> better.
>
> The main change in outlook I've had is to deny any difference between
> fact and opinion. Since MOQ reality is values, and since values are
> part and parcel of direct experience, reality is opinion based on one's
> own experience. Solipsism is avoided by granting the opinions of others
> count.
>
> Thanks.
> Platt
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
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 : Mon Sep 01 2003 - 19:30:21 BST