clark (clark@netsites.net)
Fri, 6 Mar 1998 04:48:40 +0100
Donny and LS,
I am afraid that I misled you with my posting. I tend to use hyperbole
too much because it amuses me. You know, like the guy, when asked how he
was doing financially replied, "if fat geese were selling for ten cents a
dozen I couldn't kiss a hummingbird's B***.
Or, "if trips around the world were selling for two dollars I couldn't
get to Pine Bluff."
The point is that I did mostly understand your postings because they were
written clearly and flowingly. I just didn't want to leave the impression
that I had any expertise in philosophy. In that same vein I sense that you
are paying too much attention to spelling in your latest posts. I think I
generally speak for the rest of the squad when I ask you to forget about
spelling and let the thoughts flow. Your writing was absolutely clear and
the ideas flowed in your early postings. I would rather have your ideas
than good spelling. I have extreme difficulty with philosophy in the same
way. I don't hate philosophy, I just don't understand it easily.
Maggie and Platt, thanks for your comments on my thoughts on Information
Content. Since the revelation I find that the same ideas are sprinkled
through the forum and the squad postings.
Maggie, I agree with Bodvar. You put your finger exactly on the big
problem I was having with the MOQ. I was trying to separate value and
morality between sentience and non-sentience. With my new mind-set I see
that there is no conflict between the two. I have never been able to just
accept other people's ideas. I feel compelled to attempt to understand
things in my own terms. Donny or somebody mentioned Pirsig's example of the
chair being a collection of Dharmas. I now see that that chair is nothing
more or less than a collection of Dharmas (or, in my terms, hangups in
entropy allowing greater information content) right from the Big Bang
through function. I also see that it is not necessary to make a distinction
between sentience and non-sentience because everything is a collection of
Dharmas, including us and the contents of our minds. The universe is a
collection of Dharmas that have resulted in our current situation, and
which continue to be added to. When I say Dharma, in my mind I mean the
force for greater information content which is the result of the process
which has produced the universe and everything in it. Some of you will no
doubt prefer to see this as a guided process. I prefer to look upon it as a
random process which is guided by the Goodness, Value, Morality of each
Dynamic Quality event, that is, each hang-up which produces a greater level
of information and which latches and provides a stable (static quality)
platform for the next increment of information which is added to the
process. When we reach the level of sentience then Dynamic Quality becomes
pre-intellectual. That is why I would like to think that some of the
animals (or all) are also guided by Dynamic Quality. That would seem to
have to be the case if my ideas have any merit.
Donny, I am floored by the revelation that you are an art teacher. I
approve of that but I would not have guessed it. Platt and Bo are both
artists. I have a little home art metal shop in which I mostly work with
copper but without much expertise or inspiration. I envy people who can
handle oils with expression. Ken Clark
-- post message - mailto:lilasqd@hkg.com unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:55 CEST