The statement which you are too cowardly to repeat any 6 year old can understand and requires no "defending" or "expanding" by anyone who has read Lila wherein teleology is acknowledged as credible.
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 3:45 PM, Arlo Bensinger <[email protected]> wrote: > [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/ > 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/
