Troy Becker (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Tue, 25 Aug 1998 17:41:01 +0100
On Sun, 23 Aug 1998, glove wrote:
> 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.
> 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.
indeed, it is important that our metaphysical explanation of "reality"
explains *everything* with or without human "thinking". MOQ does the job
nicely; the four levels of evoltionary [static] quality provide a
"practical" tool for our human, thinking minds.
the universe may have, in history, been "more advanced" than it is today,
although "immoral" catastrophies may have wiped out such civilizations. i
like to think that things exist "elsewhere" that are more valuable in
intellectual quality than are we humans. ironically, catastrophies have
also helped things progress (Darwinian evolution) and i suppose these
catastrophies were MOQly "moral".
-- 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