Re: MD Self-Evident MoQ Truths

From: Scott Roberts (jse885@cox.net)
Date: Thu Aug 11 2005 - 06:13:24 BST

  • Next message: Kevin Perez: "Re: MD Enlightenment or Revelation"

    Ian,

    Ian said:
    As far as "God" is concerned - was just seeking agreement (or not) to
    the fact that MoQ is God-free (requires no anthropomorphic,
    purposeful, transecendent intelligent consciousness) as propounded.
    How hard a question can that be ?

    Scott:
    Just to narrow this down: no one that I recall has proposed an
    anthropomorphic requirement (proper theism rejects anthropomorphism). Pirsig
    says that seeing purpose in evolution as being compatible with the MOQ (and
    he rejects "blind operations of physical laws" as sufficient for
    evolution -- which should mean that physicalism is anti-MOQ, unless one
    stretches physicalism to allow for non-blind operations, that is, conscious
    ones). Whether one calls DQ transcendent or not is debatable (if the SQ
    responds to DQ, is DQ immanent or transcendent? It would appear to be
    transcendent relative to SQ at any rate). Some MOQists seem to allow for
    consciousness of a sort at all levels (When I tried to get a clear consensus
    on that from Ant, DMB, and Paul I didn't get one). So that just leaves
    intellect, which does put me at odds with the MOQ. But since I am not a
    theist, this involves a different line than the one you are drawing here.

    - Scott

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    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 2.1.5 : Thu Aug 11 2005 - 07:03:48 BST