[Platt]
I guess Arlo doesn't get it. So to repeat:
[Arlo]
You don't need to repeat a statement you neither understand or can
defend. But we all expect it. Its those sort of blind references to
decontextual quotes that you then show zero ability in defending and
even less in expanding upon that make you so pathetic.
Subatomic particles had the "purpose" of making chemistry professors?
That's about the most inane and indefensible statement one can make,
and if that what you're trying to foist onto Pirsig, well the MoQ is
doomed. If it was their "purpose" to do what they did, there is no
free-will in the cosmos. And I got news for you, if that's the case
then we have no free will either. And since responding to DQ
presupposes free-will, and since all patterns from the inorganic to
the intellectual respond to DQ, then the idea of a "planned" or
predetermined purpose is (thankfully) something we can let go.
And even if in Platt's Absurdo Land the ability to respond to DQ by
inorganic patterns was "lost", back then even you admit they had it,
and that necessitates "choice" on their part, and hence a "plan" is
out the window. Thankfully.
-----
I assume your contention is meant to proclaim that those subatomic
particles had the "intent" or "plan" to make a scientist? Where did
that intent reside? In the subatomic particles? Since subatomic
particles do not have "minds" or "brains", where exactly does this
"intent" reside?
Since "man" is so much more evolved than, say, algae, why would
subatomic particles, given their ability to make such intentional
plans and carry them out continue to create algae when they could
turn themselves into a chemistry professor instead?
Indeed, if a billion years ago these subatomic particles had the
intent to make a chemistry professor, why did they wait a billion
years? Why not just make one then? Why mess around with dinosaurs and
primates and all that?
Of course, its ridiculous to propose that subatomic particles had any
"intent" or "plan" to make a chemistry professor. "Chemistry
professors" are the unintentional consequences of a host-load of
collective activity among a variety of patterns; beginning with
inorganic patterns and stretching to intellectual patterns. But
"intent" is no where in this mix. Its an absurd and indefensible claim to make.
But try to answer (you won't). Where exactly did your proposed
"intent" reside a billion years ago? In the mind of a subatomic
particle? Or is free-will and choice completely out the window and
"intent" is simply the universe unfolding according to some
predetermined "plan" of God? (Which, let me guess, has always been to
bring about the Wonderous and Glorious "Man"?)
No intent. Unintended consequences. AHA!
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/
