Platt, Pirsig is talking about "no quarrel with theories that insist". Saying that logically there is no inconsistency or conflict, which is not the same as saying one positively supports the other.
And the fact that there are theories explaining the apparent "teleology" (some of which I'm sympathetic to) does not mean this direction comes from any coordinated, manipulated, ordered, grand scheme. That would be "greedy reductionism". You are quarrelling with Arlo only because you want to. Ian On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 4:32 PM, Platt Holden <[email protected]> wrote: > [Arlo} >> But the issue here is, as always, one of "intent". I contend there is >> none. DQ >> has no "purpose" or no "plan" is manipulating, coordinating, or ordering >> any >> "grand scheme". >> in fact, nor would it care, as it will just latch onto the next >> happenstance > > Wrong again. > > "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." (Lila, 11) > 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/ > 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/
