Hi Struan, LilaQs
Struan commented on my essay at
http://indycc1.agri.huji.ac.il/~marder/Science_Philosophy/Causality.htm
I found it impossible to contradict any of this Jonathan. Your, 'The
Cause of Change,' paragraph
could use some clarification of your reasons for putting 'almost' in
Hi LilaQs,
3 weeks without posting anything must be something of a record for me.
I've been skimming through most of the posts, and quite frankly find it
depressing. I can't criticize the individual posts - mostly they compare
favorably with the best of what I've seen over the months. However,
Hi Platt, all,
-Original Message-
From: Platt Holden [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 25 February 1999 19:43
Subject: Re: MD Zen and the intellect
[snip
... I bristle at Jonathan's idea that human
individuals can be compared to gas molecules,
Platt, I think you entirely missed the point. It
Hi mystics and antimystics,
It sometimes seems that nobody ever refers back to any posting more than
3 days old:-.
I think that the following extract from my contribution of 16/12/98 is
particularly
relevant:-
Mysticism etymologically means that something is HIDDEN. It strikes me
that "hidden"
Kevin, Glove, everyone,
Glove wrote
: "...mankind will never be perfect, or even approach perfection, for
: perfection is in the individual and not to be found in society... man
and
: woman may approach perfection in spirit and in action... indeed even
become
: perfection in spirit and
Hi Mary, squad ...
After taking a month off from the Squad, I've returned to find - chaos!
This is great! I love it!
This is the big confusion. Chaos seems to be the antithesis of quality.
Pirsig places it at the lowest level of morality (below his inorganic
level). But I believe that Pirsig's
Hi MoQers,
Others have already brought over the SOUL discussion from the
moderated forum which suits me just fine. The following post of mine was
rejected from that forum because the moderator made up new rule that you
cannot refer to a discussion in the unmoderated forum Here is the
Hi Horse, Glove, Dave and fellow MD subscribers,
Horse wrote...
[snip]
It is also pretty obvious to most that it is poor etiquette and plain
bad
manners to attempt to hijack the current discussion of the sister
forum because you can't be bothered to keep on topic or go through
the legitimate
Hi Dave B. and all,
Dave wrote:
I've been trying to debate this issue from a MOQ standpoint. It's my
assertion that there was no valid intellect involved in the decision
to
bomb the Japanese cities...
Now that's a really neat arguing tactic Dave. I must try it sometime!
Now let's see . . .
JONATHAN TRIES TO CLARIFY THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SOCIAL VALUES AND THE
INTELLECTUAL PROCESS.
Hi Pirsigians,
All Philosophers: This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about.
Jonathan's "argument" is entirely free of any intellectual content. It
deliberately ignores the issues and
1. CONSCIOUSNESS
2. QUANTUM PHYSICS AND EMPIRICISM
3. LOGOS AND ARGUMENT
Hi Robert, Magnus, Maggie, Mary David and all,
Robert's post was interesting, but not nearly as interesting or
revealing as some of the responses. What struck me hardest were some
very brief statements:
MAGNUS (to Robert)
Hi Thomas, Bodvar and Squad,
BODVAR
I was
a little shocked by Thomas T. Welborn's characterization of LILA as a
harlot and panderer. Of course ZMM is matchless and I respect that he
has a special relationship with it (so do I!), but I disagree
strongly about LILA. They are completely
Hi Struan, Cory and all,
STRUAN
Whilst [Jonathan] is right that one of my objections to SOM is that
the M is misplaced - of that I am as
certain as I am about anything - I don't see why Jonathan attempts to
dispose of the argument as
semantic and not substantive. I always considered semantics to
JONATHAN LEAVES THE INTELLECTUAL vs. SOCIAL DEBATE
AND MUDDIES SOCIAL vs. BIOLOGICAL
Hi all,
We all know what the biological level includes, right?
Well what about this:
Last night the BBC World Service reported the case of a human boy found
living among monkeys in Uganda - a real-life Tarzan.
Hello Davids (B T) and all,
Me If you look back over the A-bomb exchange ...
David Buchanan:
Well, OK. But its sort of odd to reference
such an ancient conversation, especially since I've posted so much on
the topic recently.
David, I'm disappointed that you have so little respect for a
Dear David B. Platt and other MD friends.
(I started this post yesterday, and then took a Sabbath break.
I've just looked through some interesting offerings by Platt, Glove and
Ken; alas most of my posting was written before I received them. I've
restricted myself to a very minor subsequent
This unusually long (for me) post contains:
1. A REJECTION of STRUAN'S "X"
2. MORALITY OF THE UNIVERSE VS. HUMAN ETHICS
3. BOTTOM-UP THE SOURCE OF Q-JUDGEMENT
Hi Jon, Struan, Roger, Walter, Mark, Platt, Horse, Ken etc.
Struan, I'm glad to see that you are still with us.
JON:
And finally
Hi Struan, Roger, JC and all,
I took the liberty of changing the subject header to my own. Struan
probably considers this pure sophistry.
JONATHAN wrote:
"The
free-will argument is a red herring because humans clearly DO make
decisions and can be held responsible for the outcomes."
Hi Ken, Struan, Roger and Simon (welcome),
I have some comments about the underlying determinism issue which I
think has not been fully appreciated here e.g.
STRUAN:
I would say that the universe is probably deterministic - although
there could be some
degree of randomness - and that humans
Hi Platt, Struan, Magnus and all,
Please be very careful when talking about randomness. I've repeatedly
tried to make the point that randomness is not an objective property and
obviously I've failed miserably.
Actually, randomness is a pretty good example of a subject-object
platypus!
PLATT
Hi Roger, Rick and all,
ROGER:
Sq and the four levels are high
quality, logically consistent interpretations of DQ.
Does this model work for you?
RICK:
Hmmm..."Sq and the four levels are high quality, logically consistent
interpretations of DQ." Logically consistent interpretations...???
Hello everyone,
I've been sitting on the sidelines, but see little progress on the
whole free will issue.
Let me first deal with this comment from ROGER.
I am also a tad fuzzy on some of what Jonathan M is trying to get
across (is it that "randomness is an interpretation of experience" or
Hello truth seekers,
First, in the FREE WILL thread JOHN PRIOR says:
Jonathon,
When you say,
Descartes might equally have said "I have free will, therefore I am"
You sound in agreement with my postings equating free will and
mind/consciousness. ...
Absolutely. Thought without
Hi David B. and all,
DAVID B.
Jonathan and all: It seems that these issues are about something
important,
but I can't put my finger on it. JM is responding to the idea of NOT
trashing subjects objects altogether, how they compare to static
patterns
and some other fancy stuff like the nature
Hi David B. and all,
DAVID B.
And just for the record, Solipsism doesn't just recognize our
"interest" in
the subjective, it says that the world is CREATED by subjectivity, by
"mind"
in the classical sense of the word.
I basically agree with David's view of solipsism, though I am aware that
Hi Matt, Horse, Drose, David L. and all,
Matt complained how little response he got to his "Why Science
Discredits Arts" post of 19th March. Personally, I found the science
philosophy he presents to be something of a strawman, though I do agree
with this sentiment:
MATT:
Pick up a beginning
Hi all,
Time seems to a recurring theme here with several names of scientists
and philosophers coming up: Prigogine, Kant, Paul Davies, Einstein and,
most recently, Julian Barbour (thanks Peter).
Well let me share some amusing thoughts. This evening walking home from
work, I was dwelling about
Hello Platt and all,
PLATT
Do we have-- like our physical senses of sight, hearing, touch, taste
and
smell--an inborn, instinctive moral sense?
Well, well, well! I just looked back over some posts from November 1998
(Re: MD PROGRAM: Morality and the MoQ), when Platt and I were arguing on
the
Hi Horse and all,
JONATHAN
Horse brings up the TRUTH word again in its objective sense, to
which I must
give my oft repeated statement that TRUTH and REALITY are not the
same.
HORSE
No. I used the TRUE word. TRUTH (for me) is a whole other kettle of
philosophical fish.
Maybe we are
Hi David B., Roger and all,
To David B. - Sorry for being the scoundrel who forced you to
cross-post, but I do think that it is a good idea to continue the
discussion here. Perhaps I didn't make it quite clear that your "pretty
good answer" that you first posted to the MF list doesn't really
Hi Jeff, Roger and all
ROGER wrote:
Jeff,
OK, I am intrigued. What blow does "negative" quality give to the
MOQ? And
while we are at it, is there even such a thing as "negative" quality,
or just
an absence-of-quality?
Please go back to 6th March (Random Patterns thread) and have a look
Dear Struan, Rick and all,
I haven't been a very happy lurker these last few days. Struan, you are
obviously intelligent and well versed in philosophy, but I do not admire
the way you have been flaunt these virtues. As a matter of fact, when
you use these gifts to patronize and obfuscate, they
Hi Rich and all,
RICH PETTI
Oh - might as well fly two birds with one wing:
I and another are organizing some sort of conference of those interested
in
further understanding and applying the MOQ. It's a premature idea at the
moment, but the plan is to meet in the Netherlands next August, and
Hi Rich, Horse, Marc, Roger and all,
I'm away for the next week, but when I get back we should kick this
conference idea around some more.
So far, I like the sorts of ideas being thrown around.
Rich's campground idea could work - suits a grass roots, no frills sort
of event.
However, there is
Hi Mary, Dave, Peter, Mary, Can, Rich, Horse, Marco, Willem,
I just looked over the Montana State University conference office pages
at http://www.montana.edu/wwwcf/index.htm
It looks as if they have the sort of facilities we might need -
conference rooms,
cheap dorm accomodation etc.
Hi Peter, Platt, Glenn, Hamish, and all:
I've been following most of your conversations - good stuff and I'm
happy just to read.
However, I do have one comment that I think is important:
PETER
And my personal estimation of what Pirsig was trying to get at when
atacking
the sacred cow of
Hi Peter, David and all,
Peter, I think we actually agree of everything:
By your own admission, we
. ..agree that the absence of this "absoluteness" [absolute truth]
does not in any way
imply that "anything goes," or that one truth is as good as another -
that
way surely lies madness (or a
Hi all,
Welcome to the discussion Sasu,
I noticed several people criticizing MoQ on the grounds that man is
not a
central element in it, they do not seem to accept the concept that we
are
just a part of a "machinery". Did I understand correctly? And if I
did, what
would be the reason to
Hi Kenneth, Peter
[snip] Now, my question is this: is "memetics" a subject which is (at
least
potentially) one which can be approached 'scientifically'? - regular
readers
of this list will know what I mean - I don't mean that science is the
only
allowable perspective, but to avoid undue
Hi Kenneth and all,
KENNETH:
A correspondent of me, Doug Klimesh, USA,
www.provide.net/~dougklim/Memedna.htm
wrote in an article called " Meme Storage in DNA " that Stuart
Hameroff,
proposes that the microtubukes making up the cytoskeleton of basically
every living cell in addition to
This follows from the thread "Re: MD Genes, Memes, Darwin and Platt"
(The "WAVE" part comes a few paragraphs down)
Hi Platt, Kenneth, Roger and all,
PLATT
Now will someone kindly take this thread and tie it to the MOQ? I
enjoy all the speculation about genes and memes, but I'm too
dense to
Hi Platt (Peter) and all,
PLATT
Well, that memetics is considered a "discipline" is news to me. A
couple of books (Richard Dawkins, Susan Blackmore) does not a
discipline make, any more than two seminal books by Pirsig
makes him accepted in academe.
Following Kenneth's reference I checked out
Hi Platt and all,
Platt, I appreciate your taking the time to follow up on this.
PLATT:
I stand corrected and appreciate your steering me to the Journal of
Memetics web site. I learned a lot from reading the Report on the
Conference "Do Memes Account for Culture?" held at Kings
College,
Hi Platt and all,
I seem to have selfishly dragged this discussion over to something that
I've become rather obsessed with. The question of cause vs. tendency has
come to dominate my scientific outlook and my outlook on life in
general, and I've devoted many, many hours of thought to it. I have
Hi Platt and all,
This is just a quick addendum to my earlier post.
Previously I said
I'm not going to read up on Rees, because I have seen similar
arguments
by other eminent scientists, and I consider them highly fallacious. .
. .
I finally DID have a look, and was surprised to find that I
Hi everyone,
For several days I have been thinking about replying to Kenneth's
article, and about why I think that basing any idea on solipsism cannot
lead to any useful philosophy.
However, before I present the argument, I see an urgent need to respond
to the discussion that arose from Pirsig's
Hi Roger and all,
ROG:
And yes, biological --genetic -- evolution affects animal
societies. But to use our terminology, it does not operate as
dynamically on
the social level, and it doesn't have good latching mechanisms
That's is paradoxical. Latching (static) is the antithesis of
Hi Roger and all,
ROGER:
Jonathan, as usual I have enjoyed your writing. Some
questions/comments:
Thanks
JONATHAN:
Reality is the map itself, not some "absolute" terrain. Reality is the
world of experiences that have been REALised and mapped. . .
ROGER:
Well said. I think I agree. I
Hi Bodvar and all,
JONATHAN:
I will repeat what I said in the "Maps Metaphors" thread of long
ago. Reality is the map itself, not some "absolute" terrain.
Reality is the world of experiences that have been REALised and
mapped. Rather than one map, it is a series of joining maps.
Hi Dan, Roger and all
I'm enjoying your exchange - thanks for the invitation to participate.
ROGER
When genetic patterns replicate, how true do
they have to be to be considered a copy?
And is there any original DNA?
DAN
Well perhaps someone like Jonathan could answer that one better than I.
Hi Dan and all,
JONATHAN
The definition of a "signature" is both the act of signing and the
product. If you duplicate the product without the act, this is
indeed a
copy (or a forgery!).
DAN
I recall when I worked for a large corporation my check was never
signed
by the president
Hi Struan, Puzzled Elephant, Horse, Peter L. and all,
ELEPHANT:
Crystal clear. What is less clear it is that you think a firmly held
dichotomy would have to have before it became a firmly held
metaphysics. I
suspect that what it would have to have, in your veiw, is the label
"metaphysics"
Hi Dulino and all,
I don't know if you really want the physical answer, but here it is
anyway . . .
DULINO
I am not an information theorist (if someone here is, please correct
me),
but information (software) is essentially a form of energy. On a disk
or in
memory it is a particular
Hello ELEPHANT, STRUAN, 3WD, PLATT, HORSE, MARK, . . .
Elephant
The morality thing has really caught fire, so I'll talk about that.
The topic always has caused a stir - my own involvement in the debate
goes way back (remember Platt?) despite my recent silence.
Elephant [snip]
"It seems to
Just to correct some rather careless glaring errors in my earlier post:
JONAHAN
On the one hand, I don't agree with Struan's position that Pirsig's
Quality idea has nothing to do with morality. On the other hand, I
don't
agree with Elephant either.
To put it in Lila terms, "Static" morality
Hi Struan and all,
JONATHAN:
"I note that the basis of Struan's attack on Pirsig is exactly BECAUSE
the MoQ fails to provide a set of rules of morality. I (consider?) it
unreasonable even to expect such rules . . ."
STRUAN
I agree that it is unreasonable to expect this. I wonder if you,
Hi Struan and all,
Struan, I do recognise that you sometimes make valuable contributions
to this forum, otherwise I wouldn't bother with this dialogue. However,
I not appreciate your style (often insulting) or your hypocrisy. . .
STRUAN
The usual course of events is this. 1) I put forward an
Hi David P. and all
Hello David P. and all,
DAVID PRINCE
Truth must be logically consistent.
No logical system is completely consistent.
Therefore, there is no truth.
I think the middle sentence is not quite right.
Logical systems must be consistent BY DEFINITION.
In an earlier post, reference
Hi all,
Some of you may be interested in the following:
DISCOVER Vol. 22 No. 1 (January 2001)
Machines That Think
By Brad Lemley
The full article is at
http://www.discover.com/jan_01/gthere.html?article=featmachines.html
Here is an extract to give you a taste
Quote
For most of their
Hi Struan and all,
JONATHAN:
"To my way of thinking, it is ALWAYS more moral to take account of the
biggest picture possible. Rules and laws exist to save us the trouble,
and
in most cases it is good practice to follow them . . . . . UNTIL one
sees a
bigger picture that indicates otherwise."
Hi Struan and all,
STRUAN
Your initial posting which sparked off your
accusations of hypocrisy and of ignoring you, didn't even ask me a
question, so I am a tad surprised that you are continuing to chastise me
for it. But, perhaps I misunderstand.
Strictly you are correct - there was no
Hi Struan,
Even though it has not been directed at me personally I would appreciate
it if you cut the abusive attitude. I think it only serves to devalue
your arguments, and they are too important to be sullied in this way.
I will admit to being highly amused with your exchange with"Tusky" - he
Hello Jon and all,
JON
So I think it's fair to say Pirsig considers morality to be as real as
gravity. I wonder how many members agree that Morality and Quality are the
same thing? Platt, you agree. Horse agrees. Jonathan agrees (i think!). 3WD
I'm not sure about. Diana I believe thinks they
Hi Jon and all,
JON
I've never said there's anything inherently wrong with scientific
objectivity. It has been responsible for some very high Quality stuff. It's
the spill-over effect that the cold objectivity has had on our evaluations of
Morality (particularly social-level) that I'm concerned
Hi Platt, Rick, Elephant, Horse and all,
I have been avidly following the discussion on the nature of Truth and whether
or not it is absolute.
I was going to write a substantial post on the subject, but decided that a
short one is a better idea.
1. "TRUE" is a relative term - we must always ask
Hi Elephant and all,
1. no idea what you mean by "truth as an ontology"
2. noo idea what I am "making clear" to you in this passage, since I wasn't
making any point what so ever . . .
I am well aware of this, but your off-the-cuff comment hit me like a ton of
bricks (or pachyderm flesh)
Hi Elephant and all,
ELEPHANT
in a nutshell:
Things only exist where statements of their nature can be true and
consistent, either as a variety of the good or (perhaps) in some higher
(logically necessary) fashion. If that counts as a non-ontology of truth,
then I'm a vogon's grandmother.
Hi elephant and all,
Please forgive me for pursuing this still further - I consider it to be a
central tenet of the MoQ, so I don't want to let it go.
JONATHAN:
. . . for everything I
perceive to exist, I can make an infinity of "true" statements and an even
larger (:-) infinity of
Hi Elephant and all,
Jonathan, sorry for the delay
Actually, I think everyone is ignoring our little discussion. I myself find it
interesting and revealing.
From everything else you've written, I think our world views are pretty
similar, so I am genuinely interested to get to the bottom of
Dear elephant, Platt, Glenn, Roger and all,
ELEPHANT
Er, Gravity *is* an idea. And that's the whole point. What newton added to
the transparent fact that apples fall was an idea expressed in mathematics:
viz, gravity.
I fully agree. Gravity as a word, description of mathematical equation
Hi Elephant, Roger and Peter,
JONATHAN:
The falling apple is an analogue computer that operates according
to very precise rules.
ELEPHANT:
Apples are not computers. Apples are Apples. Computers are Computers.
This misses the point entirely. Peter answered it for me
PETER:
Almost anything
Elephant, Roger, Peter, Platt, Glenn and all,
ELEPHANT:
"Precisely"? Strikes me that if almost anything can be an analogue computer
for anything else then "precise" is the very last word I'd use to describe
the oxymoronic notion "analogue computer". I'm quite sure that was the
"precisely"
Hi David Lind and all,
JONATHAN:
I feel an UPWARD force on my buttocks. I feel nothing pressing on my
shoulders.
DAVID LIND
Try this out - the upward force you feel is the yin to the yang of
the
downward pressure that your body feels. The fact that you sense it
only as upward pressure
Hi Peter and all (especially Horse, who will be interested in the "fuzzy"
aspect of consciousness I suggest),
Thanks Peter for a really interesting and thought-provoking post . . .
PETER
It's intresting, because I'm working on a model of perception (for the last
6 years!) which includes
Hi elephant and Marco,
ELEPHANT
We're stretching this 'road' metaphor.
On the one hand a road is an option, something we may choose.
Marco *seems* to be saying that all options are as good as each other - that
might be a misreading but the tone of it is a source of our disagreement.
On
Hi Marco, Andrea and all,
First, I apologise for mistakenly attributing to Marco the following words,
which were actually from Andrea:
If a road to truth is just that - your travel towards the truth,
this yields many good roads [snip] So we
have different specific goals, different
Hi Roger, Platt, Elephant, (Diana, Maggie) and all,
ROGER
I agree with all this. I join Platt in applauding your clarity (which
applies to both this thread and the Metaphor one btw). But, the question
remains, ARE ATOMS AWARE? and DOES THE MOQ REQUIRE THE ANSWER TO BE "YES" TO
HANG
Hi Roger, Elephant, Platt and all,
Well folks, I now realize that we have a serious and deep agreement here
that may be a fault line that runs right through our little community.
ELEPHANT:
Check Roger's reply - he read your meaning
just as I read it. Yes you responded to my question for
Hi Elephant, Roger, Platt and all,
Firstly, I owe Elephant and everyone else an apology for misusing a word.
Ach! I've been here several months without encountering this annoyance, but
now Jonathan has finally gone and done it: he's used "refute" for "reject".
You can't beleive how much
Hi Marco, Roger, Elephant, Platt,
MARCO:
(I think there are no doubts about my position... I'm on Platt's an
Jonathan's side )
Maybe we just need a different dictionary. Do we really need the
"awareness" concept?
I could be wrong, but IMO such a term has (had?) another meaning in a
Hi Platt, Roger, PE, Thracian, Jeremy and Marco,
Thank-you all for your illuminating contributions. After a few days off,
just reading and not posting, I still feel full confidence with my
original position.
ROGER
Anyways, I am actually pretty
convinced that I have no material disagreement with
Hi Marco and all,
MARCO
Q- or not Q- ?
Ok Jonathan, you are right, it's maybe defeatist. But you will
recognize
it's not my invention: I've found it ready made on this forum. Anyway,
instead of q-morality we will say simply morality, meaning "the
morality
according to the MOQ", which is to
Hi Roger, Platt and all,
I think that Platt and Roger have now distilled the argument, though
not settled it.
ROGER:
Platt, don't you see how you are taking the MOQ's patterns of Quality
and twisting them into
Cartesian/knowing/substantive/Newtonian/discrete little subjects?
Elephant has been
Hi Roger, Marco and Platt
ROGER
So, do Platt and Jonathan indeed agree with Marco that:
1)"It seems to me that an immediate seeking for DQ can't be aware, if we
use awareness in the classic meaning Roger has offered more than one
time: "cognizant, conscious, sensible, alive, awake, and
Hi all,
The funny characters are due to problems with encoding. Microsoft is
supporting the move towards Unicode which will give a wide capability to
uniquely represent thousands of characters rather than the traditional ASCII
character set.
Till now, however, each character code is
Hi Elephant, Platt, Roger, Marco and all,
Elephant, it's good to see you back.
PLATT:
Good. We agree that objects are patterns of value.
ELEPHANT:
Yes, and my 'slant' on that, if you please, is that patterns of value, being
patterns of SQ, are patterns of *confered* value: complexes of
Hi Dan, Diana and all,
I think that Dan's enthusiasm for the LC project and Diana's reticence stem from
the same thing. Looking through the LS/MD/MF archives is a great experience. As
a discussion list, it contains some wonderful and excellent posts. It also
contains some mediocre material, but
Hi Dan, Diana and all,
I think that Dan's enthusiasm for the LC project and Diana's reticence stem from
the same thing. Looking through the LS/MD/MF archives is a great experience. As
a discussion list, it contains some wonderful and excellent posts. It also
contains some mediocre material, but
Hi Diana and all,
Diana, I read through most of your post and was just about to hit the reply
key when I read your last sentence . . .
DIANA
I think I'll put a more strongly worded warning about copyright
on the website. Hopefully that will discourage further abuses.
Absolutely It should
Hi all,
PETER
I think, legally, that having posted on the internet counts as publishing
ppl
I agree.
Posts MAY be cited with proper attribution.
Posts MAY NOT be republished without permission.
Jonathan
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive -
Hi Dave, Diana and all,
3dWAVEDAVE
What is ironic is that a site based in China has it's knickers all
aflutter about copyright issues while the ongoing discussion and quoting
from an American novel is slowly but surely transferring a majority of
that novel to the site, abeit, 250 words or
Dear friends and colleagues, especially Diana and Dan, and especially all the
newcomers,
Diana and Dan, I can't believe that you have left us. I don't know if you two
have really unsubscribed, but I took the liberty of including you as CC:
recipients because I want you to think about what I have
of Quality
Hi Jonathan
Thank you for cc-ing this to me.
From: Jonathan B. Marder [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: For the sake of Quality
Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 16:44:57 +0300
Dear friends and colleagues, especially Diana and Dan
Hi all,
(Roger, excuse me for not pursuing tha political discussion. I find it
futile.)
Why is it migrating towards
Dynamic Quality? It must be because DQ is inherently higher up on the totem
pole. Why is it higher? Its higher for the same reason that Quality exists
in
the first place: the
Hi Platt, Marco, Roger, Elephant, Clarke and all,
PLATT
I'm amazed and somewhat amused by the vehemence of [Marco's] your defense
of European-style socialism. And, you seem to take personal offense
at any interpretation of the MOQ that violates your conception of social
morality. . .
Beyond
Hi Roger and all,
ROG:
Thanks! I think what you are describing is pretty much what is called a
liberal or leftist in the US. But I may be wrong. Below is a website that
allows us to score ourselves on a libertarian scale. I just did it and
scored a strong libertarian in both economics
Hi Platt, Andrea, Roger, Glenn, Marty, Matt and All:
I think that Andrea's posts on the evolution were great. I find his
descriptions compatible with the view held by most biologists, including
myself.
PLATT
To call anyone who disagrees with Gould's view of evolution *naive*
seems arrogant to
Hi Libertarians,
Thanks to those who explained that the right to bear arms guaranteed by the
U.S. Constitution is supposed to allow the individual to defend himself
against the Government.
May I ask a few simple questions, because I may have understood something:
1. Does the US Constitution
Hello libertarians and peace lovers,
Dan, thanks for the useful history lesson. I didn't know the precise wording
before . . .
Hi Jonathan
The first ten Amendments to our US Constitution were ratified in 1791 and
came to be known as our Bill of Rights. Amendment II:
A well regulated
Hi Platt, Roger, Andrea:
PLATT
Rog, thanks for the clarification of your position. Correct me if I'm
wrong, but you make a distinction between an evolutionary direction in
individual species and evolution overall, there being no particular
direction in species, but overall a direction towards
1 - 100 of 110 matches
Mail list logo
