[Platt]
> So I agree with your "oops" and "aha" view. As for
> the MOQ being "emergent" in
> the scientific sense, it's not. The cause for
> development of the various
> levels in the MOQ is clearly and specifically
> identified -- DQ. No such creative
> force is admitted by our scientific-minded friends.
MoQ is not science Platt. SOM is not science,
either, Platt. Philosophy is the minds-eye in
science. So, use the MOQ to enlighten science.
Notice how emergence rids polar opposites found in
Ron's quotes. This is MOQ perspective on science, and
not the SOM perspective of science, right? So,
emergence won't talk about dynamic quality or even
static patterns, unless, emergence starts to use a
different language. From the quotes Ron gave it seems
emergence is looking for another way to talk about
what it has found to be.
sun's out,
SA
____________________________________________________________________________________
We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love
(and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list.
http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/265
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/
