Dear Lawrence,
You asked 15/8 15:09 -0700 (but I think your computer was 1 day wrong)
feed-back on your thoughts about non-human, non-conscious, non-moral purpose
within the dynamics of evolution.
What you wrote (see underneath) fits with what I wrote in this thread and in
the 'accidentally on purpose' thread the last few days. I think we (and I
include Scott) are seeking essentially for the same thing.
I have some hesitations when you still oppose 'natural' and 'not the product
of any design or purpose', however. That opposition is not necessary in the
MoQ I think (as I explained before).
With friendly greetings,
Wim
----- Oorspronkelijk bericht -----
Van: "Lawrence de Bivort" <debivort@umd5.umd.edu>
Aan: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Verzonden: vrijdag 16 augustus 2002 0:09
Onderwerp: MD Evolution and Teleology
...
> "Teleologists assert that there is a purpose to evolution. Teleologists
> include de Chardin (humans are evolving toward a god-like status, the
Omega
> Point), and the 'intelligent design' neo-creationists (only an
intelligence
> could have created the complex systems that we are today). My own view is
> that evolution has happened through a set of dynamics that are 'natural'
and
> not the poduct of any design or purpose, and that, now, we humans are able
> to become co-responsible with these natural dynamics for our future
> evolution. That is, we are _bringing_ our own purpose to it. We are
becoming
> self-actuating, self-purposing."
...
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 : Fri Oct 25 2002 - 16:06:19 BST