> [Platt] > Another words, "Oops." > > [Arlo] > You mean, "Aha!". And that is far better than the only thing you offer, > "Poof".
No, I mean, "Oops." > I've addressed some questions to Ham that he has been wholly unable to > answer > in any way. I ask you now the same initial question. Why do you ask these questions? > First, I assume you'd agree that at some point in the far, far distant > past, > some pre-pre-primate of man lacked the sophistication in > consciousness/awareness that "man" possesses. If you disagree here, let me > know. > > If we accept the above premise, then something had to change, some event > or > something that occurred, some change in something, that can account for > the > appearance of something where it did not exist before. No? > > I've been vocal about my view on social participation (an unintended > consequence of neurological evolution) being this "change". Physiologists > may > point to simply the neurobiological changes in themselves that account for > the > appearance of human consciousness. Both of these views you characterize > (slyly) > as "oops". I've argued that these are not "oops" but "aha's!", moments > where > Quality latched onto the unexpected formations that appeared due to > genetic > changes. > > So I ask you, Platt, "what changed?" You disavow both physiological and > sociological theories. I know that. So what do you offer instead? The > only > thing I could glean from Ham's responses is a sort of Divine Intervention, > a > great "Abracadabra!" or "Poof!" where "on high" (Ham's words) suddenly > poofed > consciousness into existence. > > What do you offer instead of these? Although you run from the word, the > only > thing you have ever offered in the past is "Great Poof" a la Ham of some > "Qualigod". Now tell me, if not "oops" or "aha!" or "poof", then what? > > [Platt] > As for finger pointing, Pirsig clearly begins with Quality and points in > many > directions, including the teleological view of evolution. > > [Arlo] > He also says the MOQ embraces non-teleological views of evolution. Since > the > MOQ can embrace both teleological and anti-teleological views, that would > seem > to make the value of "teleogi-ness" culturally relative, or maybe even > individually relative. Meaning neither are correct, it "just whatever you > want > to think". If not, how? Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
