In a message dated 7/25/02 1:47:55 PM GMT Daylight Time, pholden@sc.rr.com
writes:
> 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
>
Hi Platt,
I rather have the feeling that you are either ignoring me or do not find
anything i say to be of value? Maybe both. Anyway...
Susan Blackmore's concept of mind is that it is composed of many, 'Other than
DNA replicators' called in its entirety, the memeplex. Memes behave according
to Universal Darwinism; that is to say that as replicators they will adapt to
and exploit all environmental niches. The environment in the meme-world is
our culture.
Quality advances the best cultural entities - that is all Blackmore has to
say to bring her damn close to the MOQ?
Also, Blackmore argues that culture strives to dominate biology, and it does
so in response to advancing the best cultures.
Therefore, DNA and memes may be interpreted as striving against static
patterns and towards Quality - that's teleology?
All the best,
Squonk.
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