RE: Re: MD An atheistic system?

From: David Buchanan (
Date: Sun Feb 22 2004 - 19:31:15 GMT

  • Next message: "Re: MD SQ-SQ tension in Chinese cuisine."

    Platt and all lumps of meat:

    Platt asked:
    How does a universe emerge from nothing at all? How does life emerge from
    nonlife? How does consciousness emerge from a lump of meat?

    dmb replies:
    These are exactly the kinds of impossible questions that arise when one
    assumes a SOM. If creationism were the only alternative to the view that
    we're all meat puppets in a random and indifferent universe, I'd still mock
    creationism. Its that bad.

    "In traditional, substance-centered metaphysics, life isn't evolving toward
    anything. Life's just an extension of the properties of atoms, nothing more.
    It has to be that because atoms and varying forms of enery are all there is.
    But in the MOQ, what is evolving isn't patterns of atoms. What's evoving is
    static patterns of value, and while that doesn't change the data of
    evolution it completely up-ends the interpretation that can be given to
    evolution. Historically this assumption by a SOM that all the world is
    composed of substance put a strain on the Theory of Evolution right from its
    (Lila, chapter 11)

    dmb continues:
    Fortunately, creationism is NOT our only alternative. As I already pointed
    out, the MOQ interprets evolutionary data with a value-centered metaphysics,
    in which case those impossible questions do not arise. Instead of a
    purposeless fight for survival, the MOQ interprets the data so that "all
    life is a migration of static patterns of quality toward Dynamic Quality."

    "Survival of the fittest is meaningful only when 'fittest' is equated with
    'best', which is to say 'Quality'. And the Darwinians don't mean just any
    old quality, they mean undefined Quality! As Mayr's article makes clear,
    they are absolutely certain there is no way to define what that 'fittest'
    is. Good! The 'undefined fittest' they are defending is identical to Dynamic
    Quality. 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 Metaphysics of Quality has done is unite these opposed doctrines within
    a larger metaphysical structure that accommodates both of them without
    contradiction." (Lila, Chapter 11)

    I hope it doesn't look like I've tried to evade the questions. I've only
    tried to show why they are bad questions, questions based on assumption not
    held by the MOQ. I've tried to show that doesn't answer them so much as make
    them disappear, that it dissolves the issue.


    MOQ.ORG -
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    Nov '02 Onward -
    MD Queries -

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Feb 22 2004 - 19:34:47 GMT