From: David Morey (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Sun Aug 08 2004 - 00:09:52 BST
Hi
In the MOQ rocks are SQ patterns of value
that DQ has withdrawn from, I think you
need to try and see this. The conncetion to the
religious argument was very deliberate. But I think
as with everything else that has an SOM conceptual approach
there is a MOQ conceptual approach that is better.
The withdrawal of DQ is different from the wothdrawal of
god. It is a better conceptual approach and does not
carry the same problems. I suggest it not to explain
why SQ patterns conflict, but because I think it is the
correct way to understand how SQ can appear out of DQ.
What is SQ, a pattern, when do patterns form, when
things do not change, what does this imply, DQ has withdrawn.
I suggest we need to think deeply about this suggestion.
The MOQ improbves on SOM because the MOQ explains
why rocks are free to carry on being rocks with their rock
values despite how many children are in their path. DQ
does not carry the false weight we tried to put onto out
mythic gods. This is the improvement in clear thinking
offered by the MOQ. The knock out punch of the MOQ is
that DQ is not all powerful, good, etc because DQ has to withdraw
to allow SQ to emerge, the value of allowing SQ to emerge is the
very explanation of why there is something rather than nothing.
Nothing=DQ, finite, worldly somethings is what we call SQ,
the very gift that in-finite DQ gives to us by its restrained creativity.
Without this restraint, DQ would be flux, or a firework, burning
brightly, unbearably, disipating itself in a moment of inifinte creativity.
All SQ has quality, but it has broken away from totality, its quality is
local,
the cosmos would be crap without gravity, the higher levels depend on it
to occur, but once you have signed up for the SQ of gravity you cannot go
back on your long term commitments, DQ is not like that with respect to SQ,
DQ makes a choice, goes one particular way, at least in this cycle of the
universe.
It is only on the back of the commitments to go with atoms, molecules,
cells,
limbs, language etc that you can do complex stuff like planets and people.
Of course, planets come with gravity and rocks, money comes with crime,
etc, this is how our cosmos clearly works. Is DQ a bad archetect? You can
see
the problems. DQ needs all the help we can give it. But also, look at the
achievement! Wonder, joy! In fact most of the crap stuff we can blame on
ourselves.
Man's score card is certainly full of ups and downs. But maybe mankind is
just
on the way somewhere better then here and now. Plants are pretty cool, but
maybe
things looked bad for them at an earlier stage. This cosmos is a lot more
interesting than the one where DQ intervenes and rocks look out for innocent
victims.
Can you grasp my point?
regards
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Steven Heyman" <markheyman@infoproconsulting.com>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Saturday, August 07, 2004 10:56 PM
Subject: Re: MD MOQ and The Problem Of Evil
> Hi Mark and David-M, and all
>
> On 7 Aug 2004 at 17:05, David Morey wrote:
>
> The key thing we need to get it here is the relationship
> of DQ to SQ and how SQ is independent of DQ
> much if the time. The rock rolls down the hill,
> DQ has withdrawn and does not intervene, this is
> the value/choice DQ has taken for there to be any SQ
> whatsoever. Think: how does SQ emerge from DQ?
> SQ is the same again, repetition, DQ has left the building!
>
> msh says:
> David, I'm not saying you're wrong here, as regards the MOQ. But
> notice how what you've written above is an EXACT parallel to what is
> said by SOM religionists when they try to answer the POE. God gets
> the ball rolling, then withdraws, leaving man and free will to commit
> or refrain from evil. God does not intervene, because he wants man
> to make choices and suffer (or enjoy) the consequences.
>
> But this response to the POE is insufficient. It accounts only for
> the suffering caused by man, not for the misery caused by the falling
> boulder. God knows the boulder will cause innocent suffering, but he
> refuses to stop it; therefore, he is not benevolent. If he's
> benevolent, but can't stop it, or doesn't know it will cause innocent
> suffering, then he is either not omnipotent or not omniscient. This
> is why the POE is the knock-out punch for theists who insist that
> their god is all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good.
>
> Now, the MOQ may provide some wiggle room, and this is what interests
> me. But there does seem to be this rather large inconsistency: If
> everything derives from Quality, then immorality (suffering due to
> accident or natural calamity, evil) derives from Quality. If
> immorality is separate from Quality, then reality consists of more
> than Quality.
>
> This is why I find the idea of the dark side of Tao, as pointed out
> by Mark Maxwell, to be kind of intriguing.
>
> Anyway, I dunno.
>
> Any and all help here will be appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
> Mark Steven Heyman (msh)
>
> "Thought is only a flash between two long nights, but this flash is
> everything." -- Henri Poincare'
>
>
> EARLIER:
> > Hi Mark M, and all.
> >
> > On 7 Aug 2004 at 8:11, Valuemetaphysics@aol.com wrote:
> > The problem of evil dissolves in the MOQ because evil becomes a
> > lower evolutionary pattern dominating a higher evolutionary
> pattern.
> > We may even avoid the term evil and say that there is an absence of
> > the Good?
> >
> > msh says:
> > I agree that, in the MOQ, the POE isn't a problem, since evil, as
> > commonly understood, doesn't exist. In fact, this is one of the
> > reasons I am attracted to the MOQ.
> >
> > But, notice, the word "evil" doesn't appear in my formulation of
> the
> > problem. "Suffering" takes its place. So, how about if instead of
> > "suffering" we use the phrase "immoral activity." When a boulder
> > breaks away from a hillside and crushes a child playing in the yard
> > below, we have an example of a lower pattern destroying a higher
> > pattern, which means an immoral action, according to the MOQ.
> >
> > So, now, the argument goes something like this:
> >
> > (P1) DQ is reality
> > (P2) DQ is maximum morality
> > (P3) Everything derives from DQ
> > (P4) Immoral actions occur
> >
> > It seems that we have to deny at least one of these premises. No?
> > If so, which?
> >
> >
> > Mark M:
> > However!
> > Apparently, Japanese zero pilots may be said to have been Tao dive
> > bombers. This may sound ridiculous - a dark side to the Tao! But
> the
> > Tao has no evolutionary aspect. Therefore, it is possible to
> observe
> > the Way at a lower evolutionary level - for the zero dive bomber,
> > this is Human conflict driven by biological and social patterns -
> > and to observe the Way at high evolutionary levels.
> >
> > msh says:
> > This is interesting. Do you believe, as Phaedrus in ZMM discovers,
> > that Quality and the Tao are one and the same? I think I do. But
> > does my version of the POE, above, suggest that there is an immoral
> > side to Quality/Tao? What you call the dark side?
> >
> > Thanks, Mark, for your thoughts.
> >
> > As usual, any and all comments will be appreciated.
> >
> > Best,
> > Mark Steven Heyman (msh)
>
>
>
> 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 : Sun Aug 08 2004 - 00:20:03 BST