Hi Marco:
> P:
> > The MOQ sees purpose in the universe. Die-hard Darwinists don't see
> > any at all.
>
> 1) The MOQ sees an evolution toward better. We can quibble about the
> meaning of the term "purpose". IMO if we don't know where are we going to,
> we have no purpose but walking. The MOQ is a "here and now" philosophy. No
> long-term design . No end. I don't deny the value of short-term design,
> but what I learn from Pirsig is "Do it well now. With art. The good result
> will come."
I agree with everything you say, but feel obliged to point out that "Do it
well now. With art." exhibits purposeful or "value" behavior.
>
> 2) I think that those Darwinists that see no purpose at all don't take
> their assumption from Darwin. Jonathan has been clear on it. Running away
> from the previous situation is 100% Darwinist. It's a "here and now"
> purpose. Not a teleological "I'll go there". It's walking on while looking
> back at the past, as the famous Pirsig's quote Erin recently offered tells.
Reminds me of an Australian "walk-about" and the stock exchange's
"random walk." (-: Again, I suggest "running away" and "walking on"
exhibit purposeful or "value" behavior. The verb "to value" implies
something valued, to gain or to keep a desired state or condition. As I
interpret your view, the intrinsic purpose of evolution is to remain open to
DQ influences so as to take advantage of whatever "luck" DQ offers.
> P:
> > How did DQ influence anything before "we" came into the picture? Are
> > quantum particles purposeful?
>
> The old "awareness of atoms" thread.... no please! :-) Take that "we" as
> "we, patterns of value". OK?
Since all static patterns are patterns of value, I presume quantum
particle patterns can act purposefully in response to DQ just as "we"
can. Right?
> M:
> > > 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.
>
> P:
> > I think the MOQ agrees with you. But scientists? Darwinians? Most are
> > adamant in stating the universe exhibits no purposes whatsoever. We're
> > only here by dumb luck.
> >
>
> First, I take the razor. No "dumb luck". Simply, luck. It sounds already
> better, especially if you consider that luck is one of the names for DQ.
Luck without a purpose? Is DQ just throwing out chances with no
purpose at all? DQ, "the source of all things" tossing dice? Hmmm. IMO
this question goes to the root of the MOQ..
> (by the way, I don't need Darwin to know that I'm here -also- by luck.
> Think of the millions of spermatozoa my dad produced, and only one had the
> luck -what else?- to generate me. Just another one has been more lucky: my
> sister....)
That little question --what else?-- should not be the end of inquiry but
the beginning. It strikes me that chance, randomness and/or luck has
become, especially for those who worship science, the new, all-
explanatory God, blocking further inquiry just as the Gods of old.
> > Your position seems to be "It gets better accidentally on purpose."
> > Where have I gone wrong?
>
> I guess you insist too much with "purpose". I can accept the existence of
> many short-term competing purposes. There's no need of an overall design.
Let's be realistic. The MOQ, like any metaphysics, presents an overall
design. Also Darwinian theory. So too the "laws of physics." Even
"many short-term competing purposes" represents an overall design.
Any design can include "chance" as one of its design elements as well
as 0 or nothing. The only way I know to avoid design is stop speaking of
it all together, because as soon as you speak of it you "pattern it" i.e.,
create a design. For example, if you claim "nature has no design" you
automatically rule yourself out as being part of nature because your
statement has a design--in fact it must have--in order to be meaningful.
Maybe it all boils down to the less said about DQ, the better. We know
what it is, but it eludes description. Trying to pin it down is like trying to
answer the question, "Who is the I that knows me?"
Platt
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 - 16:06:19 BST