Andrea:
PLATT:
> > So I ask
> > specifically of you gentlemen the same question I posed in a previous
> > post today: "Is Pirsig a creationist?"
ANDREA:
> 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.
I agree if by "creationism" you refer solely to the fundamentalist
religious position on evolution. I guess that's the common definition. I've
phrased the question poorly. I should have asked, "Does the MOQ
support design or purpose in evolution? Or to put it another way, "Is
Pirsig a teleologist?" Or, another way, " Would Pirsig agree with Susan
Blackmore that evolution is 'mindless'?"
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 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:28 BST