Hi there,
Just jumping in somewhere,
Erin wrote:
> Jonathan,
> My guess is that the "purpose" of evolution is to evolve.
A dutch caraberetier has said: "Het leven heeft geen zin. Maar ik wel!
De vraag blijft: Waarin?" If I can translate it correctly, it means
something like: "Life has no meaning [purpose], but I mean to! The
question remains: WHAT do I mean to do?"
Purpose is an odd thing when you look at it in a time-perspective. We
suppose the universe started some 12 billion years ago. At least on this
planet, some 8 billion years later, life evolved from simple elements to
dolphins, birds and humans, which took another 4 billion years. What I'm
trying to get at is that if there's purpose in the universe, it's
evolving since the universe began, from the forming of stars and planets
to reproducing chemicals until now.
But wait: "since the universe began"...-->
Question: Why would the universe begin the way it began? In teological
terms, why would god seperate heaven (and hell maybe) from the rest of
the universe, letting it evolve until humans appear who have to proof
themselves to receive a ticket (back) to heaven?
I can see two options: Time is real, and it is real in heaven, but we
first have to pass the test to get there. Maybe because of a balance
thing: First suffer a life (or more!), then take the reward in heaven:
We first have to experience suffering in order to understand or be able
to experience (eternal?) bliss afterwards.
The second option: Time is somehow a construct. Heaven and hell are
states of agony or happiness in the lives we live. Purpose only shows
itself inside this construct: it's either all a matter of coincidence,
of of purpose. Outside the time-construct, this duality has no meaning.
Hm... and then Pirsig comes along that we can value a theory as long as
it helps us in some way, until something better comes along. (Platt
quotes this passage in Lila occasionally)
If Quality is not trancendental but at the base of experience (OUR
experience, not of elite mystics!) then the Quality event relates to
time and static constructs (metaphor: A static construct as a window to
a part of nature). What I'm trying to say that there's no absolute right
or wrong answer to the question as to what comes first: The Quality
event or the static constructs that supposedly differentiate from it,
because the Quality event Now depends on the evolutionary history of
both Quality AND static constructs.
In this view, Quality is indeed NOT trancendental, but changes with
time. But time is a construct maybe, so part of Quality is, too.
Hm... If asked the question before in this forum, but noone has yet
tried to answer it: Is Quality trancendental? If you say yes, then it
leads to One Absolute Eternal Truth, according to my reason. If you say
no, then reality is Changing in the Heart of it. Well...
Being tipsy of red, red wine and slightly confused, all the best,
Patrick.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
http://health.yahoo.com
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 - 16:02:29 BST