Hi Platt,
> To sum up my position. I love science. It's scientism that gets me
> agitated.
To sum up my answer, I completely agree with you on scientism. [Bad] science
is sometimes as dogmatic as [bad] religion.
But this is not the point. I find the little experiment I offered, about the
role of luck in the selection of genes and the branching of species,
convincing in its simplicity. You dismissed it as contradictory, without
explaining what really is wrong. Who is dogmatic?
I just wanted to point out that the role of chance (skill, fortune,
blessing, luck, Manito, DQ) is not secondary within a serious scientific
theory like the evolution theory is. Thus, that the theory is not in
contradiction with the MOQ.
The question is: is chance the "window" for a "purposeful DQ" to come in
from time to time and lead evolution? IMO no. Not necessarily, I mean. And
according to my Occam's razor, I cut off what's not necessary.
IMO when DQ comes in through that window, simply offers us the possibility
and the freedom to change for something else, possibly for something better.
In other words, DQ makes room and *then* we fill it with our purposes.
That's my point. It is absurd to state that universe has no purpose. IMO it
has infinite purposes, often competing. The overall movement toward the
undefined better is not a purpose, it is simply natural.
> the Greeks had the exact translation of Manito: FATE. Un
> > undefined entity which was superior even to all the powers and
> > intelligences of all their "defined" gods]
>
> Wonderful. Those old Greeks knew a thing or two.
> Purposeful chance perhaps?
I have to say a word or two here. I actually know too little about "Manito"
to state it is identical to the Greek fate. It was just a guess.
The Greek term, "ANANKE" ("Fatum" is the Latin version), is the "unavoidable
destiny" that overrides everything, our will, the oracles, the Olympic Gods
too. The Greeks never gave Ananke a face. Only one temple was dedicated to
her, but no one used to enter. In facts, they thought we can't ask Ananke
for anything, as she does not listen.
[ It's interesting that Ananke has probably etymological
connections with our "anguish". Like to say that we westerners suffer for
the impossibility to know the future and accept it as it comes.]
I think that for the Greeks it was useless to argue if destiny has a purpose
or not. Like to say: we can't say anything about DQ, so we can't say that it
has or not a purpose. Nor we can say that it is already written or not.
Ciao,
Marco
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 - 16:06:18 BST