Re: MD Beyond

From: David MOREY (
Date: Fri Mar 12 2004 - 19:11:26 GMT

  • Next message: Wim Nusselder: "Re: MD quality religion"


    Man from UK asks what soccer moms are?


    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Matthew Poot" <>
    To: <>
    Sent: Friday, March 12, 2004 7:29 AM
    Subject: Re: MD Beyond

    > Jon(?) Well I guess you would have to include oxygen to that list of
    > things we cannot rid ourselves of. Oxygen is actually a metabolic
    > poison. It's a corrosive gas, like fluorine, which is used to etch
    > glass. Oxygen was first produced as *a waste product* by certain plant
    > cells
    > Poot: Yes I am aware of this. However there is a fundamental
    > difference between free radicals, and environmental estrogens. Quite
    > different. Platt remarked that this should not be here, because it
    > seemingly does not have to do with quality, but I propose that it does,
    > just not in the metaphysical way. So, if that be the case, then it
    > won't belong here. I will not get into specifics, and use more
    > metaphysical terms, to some other end.
    > You also speak of the apparent 'freaking out' of 'people' at discovering
    > the bacteria, which are in a symbiotic relationship with the human
    > body's wellness (directly affecting the quality of thought, via the
    > brain. Now, this presumption, that you know of what I speak
    > (environmental estrogens) :
    > Jon : Man lives in a sea of bacteria. They are everywhere--on the skin,
    > in the ears and mouth, lungs and stomach. *Don't* be scared by your
    > science report. Everything we own, touch, and breathe is drenched in
    > bacteria. We've adapted together and most of the time work for mutual
    > benefit. It has more in common with capitalism than socialism, but I
    > regress. Only a small percentage of bacteria produce human disease, the
    > rest are harmless or beneficial. So relax. We adapt. What's in the air
    > isn't killing us any more than oxygen is.
    > Poot:This is very true, however, completely different from what I speak
    > of. I think, and I am sure that we can agree on this, that the physical
    > health of the body, has a most direct, and important role in brain
    > healthiness, which directly supports higher intellectual (spiritual as
    > well???) activity. And, if you will wait to see, life expectancy of a
    > largely growing percentage of population, will decrease , due , not to
    > lack of medical or pharmaceutical (I dont even take pills for my cold,
    > because it weakens the immune system) technological advancement , but
    > other factors such as diet (relating to moderation and economy)
    > Jon: And humans are healthier, stronger, more developed, and live longer
    > than EVER before in history--this simply flies in the face of those who
    > say humanity is killing itself. And we *don't* need to rid our bodies of
    > all those things you mentioned--they actually contribute to a strong
    > immune system.
    > I wish radical environmentalists wouldn't be so hostile to opinions that
    > don't absolutely agree with their own.
    > Poot: I do not consider myself to be a 'radical environmentalist' , but
    > rather, someone who is a proponent of economy, and and proportion.
    > Economy, not pertaining to financial terms, but the true meaning of the
    > word. Here is what I found in the dictionary:
    > Economy:
    > 1.. Careful, thrifty management of resources, such as money,
    > materials, or labor: learned to practice economy in making out the
    > household budget.
    > Now(back to the suv :), in what sense would you hold suv's to be
    > economic? As I said, unless they are fully utilized , then they are ,
    > in fact, anti-economic. What is the purpose of such a vehicle, after
    > subracting its lack of precision, economy, etc.? I do not intend to
    > say that suv's are quality devoid, but it is just not good practice to
    > use them in current fashion (excess). I mean, do you really need a
    > vehicle that uses 10 times the amount of fuel, and larger amounts of raw
    > materials, and labour to produce, for 1 person to use, simply because
    > they have the financial means to do so? It is simply not feasible, on a
    > planet of 6 + billion people, to continue to waste to the point of
    > extreme excess.
    > "He singled out aspects of Quality such as unity, vividness, authority,
    > economy, sensitivity, clarity, emphasis, flow, suspense, brilliance,
    > precision, proportion, depth, and so on..." ZMM Pg 186 (this quote
    > doesnt really affirm or prove anything, but is for consideration)
    > Jon: Soccer moms DO have Quality, the kind that makes America Dynamic,
    > and that point DOES belong here
    > Poot: I don't believe I said that soccermoms DON'T have quality. I say
    > that they promote inequality. Which, is "" bad "" in my books.
    > Also, if you think of what I have written as not relating to the MoQ,
    > then consider this: Our actions, are a direct reflection of our
    > mindsets.
    > Matt Poot
    > MOQ.ORG -
    > Mail Archives:
    > Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    > Nov '02 Onward -
    > MD Queries -
    > To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

    MOQ.ORG -
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    Nov '02 Onward -
    MD Queries -

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Mar 12 2004 - 19:17:27 GMT