From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Fri Oct 03 2003 - 20:31:05 BST
Wim:I on my part (28 Aug 2003 23:45:20 +0200) appreciated the description of
> evolution you quoted from Paul:
> 'evolution does lead to "betterness" because the universe evolves from a
> condition of limited responses to Dynamic Quality to progressively diverse
> responses.'
I like this. I think it is very important that after the molecular level
starts making life possible, cosmic evolution has turned in the direction of
ever more dynamic possibilities, so that an individual human being is the
most
dynamic being the cosmos has yet seen.
Regards
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: "Wim Nusselder" <wim.nusselder@antenna.nl>
To: "MD" <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 10:22 PM
Subject: Re: MD Forked tongue
> Dear Platt,
>
> A long overdue response. You wrote 07 Sep 2003 08:56:08 -0400:
> 'Guess we're having problems understanding one another.'
>
> We indeed seemed to understand each other much better in the beginning of
> this thread.
>
> Then you (28 Aug 2003 08:56:06 -0400) appreciated my description of
> evolution:
> 'evolution (at any level) is a pattern explainable by the interplay of
good
> static latches and dynamic breaks from those latches that only leave a
> lasting impression if that what breaks free finds a "better latch".'
>
> I on my part (28 Aug 2003 23:45:20 +0200) appreciated the description of
> evolution you quoted from Paul:
> 'evolution does lead to "betterness" because the universe evolves from a
> condition of limited responses to Dynamic Quality to progressively diverse
> responses.'
>
> It's the quibbling about terms like 'purpose' and 'consciousness' that
> decreases understanding between us.
>
> Our different understandings
> - of the self/non-self distinction (a non-metaphysical distinction versus
a
> subject/object distinction in disguise),
> - of rationality (to be identified with 'ego-centered' if distinguished
from
> emotion and intuition?),
> - of intuition and emotion employing symbols (possible or not?),
> - of purpose (distinguishable in purpose-having and purpose-giving?) and
> - of consciousness (is 'universal consciousness' a useful concept?)
> lead too far away from the initial subject of this thread to merit much
more
> discussion, I'd say.
> We're not interested in discussing merely about definitions of words, are
> we? Behind these discussions about words is hidden what descriptions best
> exemplify our versions of the MoQ and what experience is essential for us
to
> distinguish the MoQ from SOM. Paradoxes (exemplifying for instance that
> Quality can be expressed both in maintaining a pattern and in changing it)
> and metaphors (like the 'light through a window' one you quoted) that defy
> definition of their terms are probably better means for this deeper
> discourse.
>
> With friendly greetings,
>
> Wim
>
>
>
> 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 : Fri Oct 03 2003 - 20:31:54 BST