Greetings,
> I too read and re-read Chapter 11, and I agree that chemistry professors
and
> duck billed platypi not only exhibit purpose, they are defined by purpose.
> The universe is defined by purpose. But the universe doesn't have a
purpose.
>
> This is falling into the same SOM trap that Diana pointed out last month on
> free will.
I am new to the discussion but plunge in anyway.
What is meant by 'purpose' in this context? To define Reality ('the
Universe') by its purpose is to subjugate it objectively, is it not? So it
seems to me.
>From a semantic standpoint, phenomena such as platypi and professors need not
be defined by purpose only, but by any value (platypi have duck bills and add
nothing to intellectual discussions, professors have, say, tweed suits and try
to dominate those discussions).
Defining phenomena by purpose seems to have high intellectual value, but I am
not sure how the sum of phenomena (i.e. the Universe) is to be defined by
common purpose; except insofar as (we theorize) the Universe tends to move
toward DQ, but formally that is no definition at all!
-SK
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:35 BST