this is kind of funny because it just seems to squabble about
the definition of teology.
B values precondition A --- is teological to me but not you
evolution toward a dynamic goal---is teological to me but not to you
I am going by that "toward something" makes it teological.
but it seems that everybody is saying that teological is a
defined goal only. I am not sure if that is true or not.
If it is a defined goal only I will agree it is not teological.
But i need some "proof" that it has to be a defined goal.
i would like comments back from this site's article
http://www.quantonics.com/Bergsons_Creative_Evolution_Topic_10.html
the reason i said causal is not at odds with teology was in
the same way som is not at odds with moq. It doesn't toss it
out it just transcends and includes it.
"Pirsig restates SOM's A causes effect B with Bs value preconditions/affects
As. (our plurals on Pirsig's original "B values precondition A."
i think it is interesting because Roger thinks Pirsig and thus teological
is wrong, Marco thinks Pirsig doesn't agree with teology,
Platt thinks Pirsig and teology are right.
it just makes me giggle--- all this over the "definition" of
teology. is it toward a goal or toward a defined goal?
I just came across this statement that said evolution is at
odds with teology, to be more precise it is neutral about it.
erin
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 25 2002 - 16:06:16 BST