Hi Steve, As for the purpose of purpose, you're familiar with teleology which posits a final cause towards which purpose strives. Pirsig acknowledges it in Lila:
"Neither is there a quarrel between the Metaphysics of Quality and the "teleological" theories which insist that life has some purpose. What the Metaphysics of Quality has done is unite these opposed doctrines within a larger metaphysical structure that accommodates both of them without contradiction." (Lila, 11) Perhaps the most famous proponent of teleology was Tielhard de Chardin who posited an Omega Point toward which evolution was purposefully headed. I don't have strong feelings about his theory one way or another. But when I look about I see evidence of purpose everywhere, from the lowliest germ to the highest artist (Michelangelo comes to mind.). The purpose of life at its most basic is to survive and reproduce. Pirsig dares to ask, "Why?" and then proceeds to offer an answer in the MOQ. You know, that's what I like about the MOQ. It answers basic questions of philosophical inquiry. We may not like all the answers, but the MOQ does give us a path to the high country of answers to "Why" on whose rock science (and SOM) founders. No longer need we be satisfied with answers such as, "Well, it just emerges." Other philosophers have come up with answers to such basic questions, too, but all within the SOM framework. The neat thing about the MOQ is that it creates a new framework that includes but transcends SOM. In doing so, it answers the basic questions better than ever before. I guess that was Pirsig's purpose, but I have no doubt it advances the evolution of life. Best, Platt On 26 Oct 2010 at 10:45, Steven Peterson wrote: Hi Platt, Platt: > Sorry, I don't follow your argument. You say purpose is something that goes > on > within the universe. Is not what goes on within the universe (life) also > part > of the universe? And if a part, is it not correct to say the universe > exhibits > purpose? > > IMO purpose doesn't have to stand outside the universe for us to say the > universe is purposeful. To deny the universe is purposeful is a self- > contradictory because the denial itself presupposes purpose in making the > denial. Steve: The is no doubt that I have a purpose in denying that the universe has a purpose or rather in denying that "does the universe have a purpose?" is a well-formulated question. If you want to say that "the universe has a purpose" follows from the fact that things in the universe have lots and lots of purposes...well, if that's all you mean, you won't find any disagreement anywhere. Platt: > Certainly the MOQ posits universal purpose -- towards betterness. Steve: But what is the purpose of purpose, what is the purpose of betterness? I think questions of purpose dissolves when you stop looking for THEE purpose and recognize that everything have lots and lots of purposes. Best, Steve 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/md/archives.html
