Mon, 24 Aug 1998 03:18:22 +0100
as you know by now, i am in disagreement with the traditional historical
evolutionary viewpoint which has become all pervasive in our twentieth
century teachings. while in high school (has it really been nearly 30 years
ago?) i read a book that deeply influenced me...worlds in collision, by
immanuel velikovsky, a heretical book that was denounced and ridiculed by
the scientific establishment to the point of its being dropped by its
publisher, even though the book itself was a number one best seller, the
only time this has ever happened, before or since WIC.
since then, the scientific community has pretty much accepted catastrophism
as a driving force in the history of planet earth. the dinosaurs are thought
to have perished when a large comet or asteroid struck the earth in the
yucatan region of mexico. the 'carolina bays' are thought to be an impact of
a cometary train of material numbering close to a half million pieces. we
have come to realize that the sky can indeed fall on our heads, without
my question, can the MOQ account for the possibility that advanced human
civilizations may have indeed existed prior to our historically known times?
i may be the only one here that wonders this, but if humanity has existed on
earth for as long as we seem to have, (estimates range anywhere from 300,000
years to 3 million years, in our modern form) why is it we have only started
to evolve intellectually within the last few thousand years? actually Pirsig
says it has only happened in this century!
perhaps its not the MOQ that is mistaken, it is the point of view of who is
using the MOQ to make an analysis of conventional history which makes this
point subject to debate. the MOQ could also be used to show how the
collective intellect grows to a point to where it must expand in a dynamic
leap, and as it has grown over the last several thousand years, these
expansional leaps have become a continuous stream only within the last
hundred years or so. this may be related directly to the amount of input
going into the social layer which is of value to the intellect, and at some
point, a critical mass is reached whereby the intellect 'takes over'.
we can now fit a catastrophic viewpoint into the MOQ by saying the layers
grow continually more complex within themselves and in relation to the other
layers as the number of individuals grow. this in itself seems to be what we
call evolution. now, if a sudden tradegy wipes out most of the population,
the remaining individuals would be forced to regress into the biological
layer for their very survival. the intellect would be all but forgotten, and
the social layer would have to be rebuilt as well. we have mountains of myth
stating that this is precisely what may have happened not once, but many
times in the past.
over the last thirty years i have become convinced that during the past, a
series of catastrophies have occurred on the earth, probably of cosmic
origin, and that these catastrophies have occurred within the history of
humankind and may well be the cause of us being here in the first place.
velikovsky was probably mistaken in placing the last major event in or
around 1500bc, but nonetheless 'something' appears to have happened at that
there is growing evidence that 'something' may have happened in 10,500bc as
well, though when we start to deal with such enormous time spans, there is
little hope of discovering just what that 'something' was. some speculation
centers on a supernova that occurred in the vicinity of our solar system
about that time, or rather it would be more proper to say the effects of
that supernova were felt in our solar system at that time. other theories
attribute all catastrophies to impact collisions between the earth and
asteroids or comets, however, these theories fail to account for just where
the asteriods and comets come from in the first place.
now, i am not about to try and convince anyone of the existence of Atlantis
or Mu, but i think we are being shortsighted if we view our recorded history
as the only scenario of possibility. i think by recognizing that fact, we
can perhaps see that the MOQ itself is not evolving at all, rather it is the
underlying means by which evolution is occurring. that eliminates the need
to add layers above and below the four layers and would allow us to
concentrate instead on just how to use what we know now of the MOQ in a more
expansive way than other metaphysics available to us. we can still use the
idea of evolution, but the use of it would be in a somewhat different
context than conventional neo-darwinism evolution.
i hope this hasnt taken us too far astray from the conversation at hand and
i only offer it in the hopes it may shed some light on my somewhat eccentric
viewpoints of the MOQ.
best wishes to all,
In the light of day,
Yet in a dream he talks of a dream.
A monster among monsters,
He intended to deceive the whole crowd.
-- homepage - http://www.moq.org/lilasquad unsubscribe/queries - mailto:email@example.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:39 CEST