Platt Holden wrote:
> Andrea also mentioned that "reasons why" are beyond the purview of
> Popper's falsification test. Pirsig raised the issue, "Why survive?" and
> proceeded to supply the answer based on MOQ principles. So I ask
> specifically of you gentlemen the same question I posed in a previous
> post today: "Is Pirsig a creationist?"
Of course he isn't (I am tempted to ask, "why would you put the question at
all?", so there may be something I am missing, here). MOQ's answer to the
question "why survive?" is really a set of questions ("why would the individual
fight to survive?" "why would the species fight to survive?" "why would a society
fight to survive?", etc., where "fight" in all cases includes "adapt"). In any
case, given the role the MOQ assigns to DQ, and the way DQ incarnates in the
constant progress of SQ patterns towards "betterness" (or should I say, from good
to better, towards "bestness"), the MOQ couldn't do without the concept of
evolution, which is actually applied to all levels including, but not limited to,
biological. The "still life" picure provided by creationism, whereby all life is
as it has always been (perfect?), rules out the essence of the MOQ, i.e., the
SQ/DQ split.
A
-- Andrea Sosio P&T-TPD-SP Tel. (8)9006 mailto: Andrea.Sosio@italtel.itMOQ.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 - 16:02:28 BST