DMB, Interesting, when you said ... "I don't think the MOQ asserts any inevitabilities, pre-existing purposes ... anything of the sort."
I say interesting, because I'd have thought most interpreters of MoQ would suggest the inbuilt direction (law) of evolution is towards betterness - better-fitted-ness ? A direction, a tendency, but no intended destination, so not what I'd call teleology, or purposefulness, but that's a moot point. It's also a moot point because I don't hold that view anyway. In fact the problem we have in the human (socio-cultural-intellectual) levels is that we tend to think in terms of controlling our environment towards ends we see as desirable. Ends (outcomes) must emerge, rather than be planned or aimed at directly. We break the cycle when we think we can "cause" desirable outcomes, whereas we can really only detect what is better for us and influence the direction of change in the here and now. (BTW has anyone read Daniel Quinn's "Ishmael" take on human effects on evolution of the cosmos ?) Ian 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/
