<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:roman;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-1610611985 1107304683 0 0 159 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:swiss;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-1610611985 1073750139 0 0 159 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:10.0pt;
margin-left:0in;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-default-props:yes;
font-size:10.0pt;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;
mso-header-margin:.5in;
mso-footer-margin:.5in;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
Krimel/Case
asked:
Ant,
Would you agree that it is unfortunate that the MOQ excludes itself from
mainstream evolutionary thinking as a result of Pirsig's lack of contact
with say, Gould, Wilson or Dawkins?
Ant
McWatt comments:
No,
I’d say it’s unfortunate that mainstream evolutionary thinking has excluded
itself from taking on board the MOQ (though, to be fair, I think Dawkins
followed this Discussion group for a while in the mid-2000s)! If the
(metaphysical) basics that you rely on
are problematic in the first place then the value of your empirical work is
going
to be reduced accordingly. LILA would have
been a more interesting read if it had included reference to thinkers such as
Gould,
Wilson and Dawkins but possibly that would have taken out the fun for making
these
comparisons for yourself.
Krimel/Case
then asked:
Doesn't
his teleological view and his insistence on a "direction" for
evolution cripple progress on the MOQ?
Ant
McWatt comments:
By
“progress”, I take it that you mean academic acceptance in the Anglo-American
tradition? If so, I’d tend to agree with
you though I think that’s more down to the blinkered attitudes of these
academics who can’t see beyond the creationist/materialist options
and, in addition, are usually clueless about Zen (and/or Dynamic Quality).
Possibly,
it comes down to how much weight that you put on the eventual appearance of
civilization,
the Arts and Sciences in this universe. Explain those just using the laws of
physics! Personally,
I do think they indicate a general progressive direction; a creative impulse if
you like but, critically for the MOQ, one that does not require a
pre-determined static
plan and/or creator.
Finally,
Krimel/Case asked:
Would
you care to comment on his failure to correct his mistakes in the Baggini
interview?
Mistakes?!!!
There’s mistakes not corrected by Pirsig in the Baggini interview?!!! My guess
is that you’re thinking of Pirsig’s comments in LILA concerning the Second Law
of Thermodynamics but, if not, you better be more
specific.
.
_________________________________________________________________
Got a cool Hotmail story? Tell us now
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/195013117/direct/01/
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/
