> > [Case] > > It was a long and hard battle to finally discredit Aristotle's absurd > > notion of final cause. "Oops" is merely a modern refinement in this > > process. Regression into a search for imaginary future perfect states is > > not so much hope for an explanation as it is a form a psychosis. > > [Platt] > Lots of very intelligence people disagree with your diagnosis. But, they > could be wrong. > > [Case] > Three that come to mind are you, Ham and Ken Wilber. You generally go > straight to the wishful thinking argument that the idea is just disturbing > and unsatisfying. Ham loads on a pile of meaningless terminology in the > hope of talking it to death. Wilber confronts it head one but only avoids > it by positing some kind of supernatural consciousness and appealing > directly to animism and teleology. > > There is nothing to stop you from being wrong if you wish but it would be > nice if you could rationalize your choice a little better than appealing > to something as vague as "lots of very intelligent people".
[Platt] Did you deliberately omit Pirsig? [Case] It was not totally deliberate. Are you suggesting I have not been clear enough often enough about my disagreement with him on this point? But if this is intended as an argument from authority on your part it is still lame. 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/
