On 14 Jun 2009 at 21:41, John Carl wrote: > The functional definition of reductionism I would use is Krimel's: the > attempt to explain phenomena in terms of its necessary causes. I pointed > out to him, and now to you as well, that such a task is a fool's errand > exactly along the lines of finding an end to hypothesisizing a given > phenemone. Eventually the necessary causes for any given phenomena are/is > the entire cosmos. > > I do agree that man is "more" than stones, trees and bugs, but this > "moreness" is mainly in his head.
Do you think "the entire cosmos" is also "mainly in his head?" Or just the idea of "moreness?" > The biggest problem I have with the MoQ is the way some take it's moral > teaching about the hierarchy of levels and use that to glorify the man at > the apex. A similar concern for a deep ecology aficianado. Are you generally against hierarchies regardless of the subject, e.g., that nothing is essentially better than anything else? Or, is it just man's thinking he is "better" you find objectionable? Thanks, Platt 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/
