Good morning gav,
----- Original Message -----
From: "gav" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, October 17, 2008 1:45 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] growth and sustainability
> hi,
>
>
<snip>
> >
> > m
> > The roller coaster rides are symptoms of the way
> > SQ is 'broken' by DQ. DQ builds a solid foundation
> > on imaginary ground and SQ quakes the 'real' gound
> > and bursts the incorrectly conceived foundation.
>
> g: i think you have mixed up the two but i see your analogy.
m
Did mix it up, good catch
The roller coaster rides are symptoms of the way
DQ is 'broken' by SQ, when DQ get too confining.
> >m
> > It is not that cycles are 'good' or
> > 'necessary'
> > they are unavoidable. To dream of a state with all wave
> > tops and no wave troughs, all high points and no low is
> > a beautiful dream. But in their effects, the acts of
> > war, greed, depression, rape, as ugly as they may be
> > just are a part of the 'forces of evolution.'
>
> g: now this is just plain bullshit. dangerous bullshit. it is not about
'wave tops', it is about equilibrium, dynamic balance, sustainability,
something the australian aboriginals had for over 100 000 years.
m
Not BS, just long-view history and judging from the news on
the glass teat (tv) continuing low quality behavior. My statement
about 'wave tops' was to illustrate the earlier comment that any
notion of equilibrium in the real world is one of oscillation within
some (normative-possibly?) bounds. I've not studied the
Aus-aboriginals, but 100,000 seems a bit long for the presence of
modern man outside Africa. My history gets fuzzy pre-holocene.
>
> dismissing genocide and ecocide as unavoidable is to be morally vacuous
(and i am being very polite here)
>
m
Again, historically speaking, these are fact.
The question of avoidable or unavoidable really go to the core of
why we study MOQ, presumably. (You seem to want to issue an
angry indictment through your bottled outrage, but unless that
adds clarity to understanding, I'm past that stage of heroic
indignation--hell burns no hotter for my feelings of Auschwitz)
>
> >m
> > Evolution? I think it clear that cycles and variation,
> > unexpected and impossible to conceive, are hall marks of
> > the very forces that cause change and response that
> > we include under the ever unfolding model we have of
> > evolution.
>
> g: you haven't actually said anything in this paragraph. you would make an
excellent political scriptwriter (half-joking).
m
sorry, I assumed too much.
Put another way, high frequency of dynamic conditions seem
to require similarly dynamic response in behavior and adaptation
and that ought plop you square into Darwin's lap.
<snip>
> >m
> > Theories will always stand as less than the actual,
> > much as first order infinities (of integers) are
> > exceeded by second order infinities. (of real numbers)
> > as Turing showed the inherent limit of modeling in
> > algorythms.
>
>
> > Our theory of Evo is right, that is it vectors in the
> > proper
> > direction, but it will always be short of fact.
>
> g:which theory of evolution? vitalistic or nihilistic? european or
american/english? dawkins or bergson?
>
> the neo-darwinian theory of evolution is about as useful as a phil collins
record at a bucks party. the maths don't add up. random mutation provides
the raw material for natural selection to act upon....?! yeah that explains
it. scientists, they crack me up.
m
Thanks for expanding the point.
<snip>
>
> g: <snip>
> evolution is happening now (it can't happen at any other time now can
it?), we are evolving, along with everything else. but from where are we
evolving and to where are we evolving? that is where the MOQ comes into its
own i think.
m
good point
> g:
> we can choose to take responsibility for ourselves and the world or we can
abdicate that resonsibility, citing any number of pseudo-scientific excuses
('human nature' for a super-banal example).
m
In order to take responsibility for ourselves we need to also know
what the situation of the world is within which we are acting.
> g:
> if we choose to take responsibility for ourselves and the world then we
are conscious agents of evolution. as goethe said, when we make this
decision it is then that providence begins to act with us.
>
m
I guess we could call it DQ.
thanks for the help, gav.
thanks--mel
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
