Hi Glenn,
My problem is that he never says creationism in his quote.
He says teleological so interpret it as such.
I can see you are really comfortable about making assumptions
(like Occam's and which teleological purpose) but I am not.
Erin
Where does Pirsig say anything about MoQ supporting
>>creationism?
>>
>>
>>Erin
>
>PIRSIG: (Lila, ch. 11, p. 166 paperback)
> Natural selection is Dynamic Quality at work.
> There is no quarrel whatsoever between the Metaphysics of Quality
> and the Darwinian Theory of Evolution.
> Neither is there a quarrel between the Metaphysics of Quality and the
> "teleological" theories which insist that life has some purpose. What
> the MOQ has done is unite these opposed doctrines within a larger
> metaphysical structure that accomodates both of them without
> contradiction.
>
>Erin:
>>Did you not read my Tao does not equal God example? You may not explicitly
>>write creationism = teleological but you
>>interchange them so freely that you implicitly imply it.
>
>I don't think so. The MOQ is teleologically based as well but I would
>never say it is equivalent to teleology. The context of Pirsig's quote
>refers to rival camps in the evolution debate. He may have issues with
>other aspects of creationism but he doesn't mention them. The fact that he
>grew up in the American mid-west, where creation science is very strong,
>makes me think he has some affinity for it.
>Glenn
>
>
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 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:25 BST