Quoting Heather Perella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > [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.
Beg to differ. SOM is science's mindset, or to use the more fancy word, "paradigm" > Philosophy is the minds-eye in > science. Don't know what that means. > So, use the MOQ to enlighten science. I try. God knows science could use some enlightenment. > Notice how emergence rids polar opposites found in > Ron's quotes. Don't know what that means. > This is MOQ perspective on science, and > not the SOM perspective of science, right? There are plenty of polar opposites in the MOQ, like death vs. life. > So, > emergence won't talk about dynamic quality or even > static patterns, unless, emergence starts to use a > different language. Or a different mindset. > From the quotes Ron gave it seems > emergence is looking for another way to talk about > what it has found to be. What it has found it cannot explain. So it says, "It emerged." That's like pulling a rabbit out of a hat. Magic. "It emerged." Oops. And the audience goes, "Ahhh." ------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/ 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/
