From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Wed Dec 01 2004 - 19:53:21 GMT
On 30 Nov 2004 at 19:55, hampday@earthlink.net wrote:
All morality is relative. Since your Quality is what I call Value
and some call Goodness, it is relative to man's conscious awareness
which is the raison d'etre of existence.
msh asks:
Man's conscious awareness is the "reason for existence" of existence?
Or do you mean raison d'etre in the less strict sense of teleological
purpose? If so, the MOQ provides all the purpose one needs: the
purpose of existence is to strive for Quality, to simply get better.
On 1 Dec 2004 at 1:20, hampday@earthlink.net wrote:
Who are we to question "imperfection"?
msh:
Well, then who are we to question anything? This problem of
imperfection only arises when someone tries to explain empirical
reality after positing the existence of a perfect "designer." Drop
the assumption, and the "problem" disappears.
ham:
How do we know that what we see as imperfect may not be essential to
the development of man's value sensibility?
msh says:
We don't. But why assume the imperfections are put in place as part
of a design to develop man's value sensibility; why not simply
recognize that every sentient's value sensibility develops because
the world is an imperfect place?
ham:
These are not just platitudes; I am quite serious. There is a reason
that we live in a relational universe.
msh says:
Again, cart before the horse.
ham:
For anyone who has studied embryology or the immune system, nothing
produced by man approaches the perfection of these biological
systems. But even the most perfectly constructed clock occasionally
needs oiling and eventually wears down.
msh says:
Please. Anyone who has studied either of the systems you mention is
well-aware of how imperfect they are. Ever hear of AIDS? Horribly
deformed new-borns and non-viable fetuses?
ham:
I submit that what we regard as imperfections are not "defects" of
creation, but part of the learning curve built into the Master Design
for man's edification.
msh says:
Your submission is really a highly suspect assumption, based on
"facts" not in evidence.
ham:
There will come a day for each of us to trade our conditional
existence for the Absolute Oneness of our designer. Let's hope we
will have realized the value of this singular existence before that
day arrives.
(Just a thought to ponder from one whose life-experience is mostly
behind him.)
msh says:
I appreciate the thought, and can even understand the attraction for
some people, to some extent. However, contrary to popular mythology,
we are all in the same foxhole, and many of us love life enough to
take it, and leave it, on its own terms, no comforting certainty
required.
Best,
Mark Steven Heyman (msh)
--
InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors
Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983
Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com
"Thought is only a flash between two long nights, but this flash is
everything." -- Henri Poincare'
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 : Wed Dec 01 2004 - 21:28:08 GMT