[MD] Dawkins a Materialist (is watching?)

[MarshaV]

Greetings Mark,

For me, DQ being 'undefined' translates to DQ is 'beyond definition' 
because the apparatus doing the defining would be a sq process.  But 
I'm also curious how would this bit of cleverness (below) effect your 
coherence/unity notion?

Marsha


At 08:09 PM 1/18/2007, Mark wrote:
>
>
>But I've not answered your question yet David, and i apologise. So here  goes
>(but please don't ascribe any of this to me - these are suggestions and not
>my opinion):
>I respect your understanding of the moq David.
>You are not one to be hoodwinked.
>I am not here to try and hoodwink you.
>I am here to show how i feel others may be hoodwinked, and intellectuals  may
>be messed with.
>
>The first step is to suggest that DQ is a principle.
>This as yet unspecified principle is at work in static evolution.
>There are a number of metaphors utilised in Lila which may support the
>notion of DQ as a principle even though it is explicitly stated that DQ is
>undefined.
>Notice that DQ has been described as, 'unspecified?' That's damn close to,
>'Undefined' isn't it?
>
>The hoodwinking has begun.
>I know you are not going to fall for it David, but having said that, it's
>not easy to distinguish 'unspecified' from 'undefined' perhaps. Something to
>think about maybe?
>
>Once the unspecified has been introduced, it's not difficult to align the
>unspecified with
>Nous.
>Note: Nous is an ancient term, and difficult to define. It is in fact a  life
>principle.
>However, here is were a bit of sneakiness comes in: Nous has resonance's
>with Intelligence.
>Very sneaky.
>So, Nous, which is hard to pin down, but has a flavour of Intelligence, is
>aligned with the unspecified nature of DQ. Before you know it, DQ has a
>nebulous  kind of intentionality directing static evolution.
>
>The top level of static moq has been aligned with a super-intellect -  God.
>This isn't a Christian God - this is a Christian thinkers God, or a
>theological God.
>
>You retort: That's rubbish. Is that the best you can do? DQ is undefined,
>you can't call it any 'thing.'
>Theist replies: We haven't specified any thing. The principle directs
>evolution because the principle is the teleological goal (as stated 
>in Lila - we
>call DQ a principle that's all). Nothing has been specified but 
>the  principle
>is good and we think, if you don't mind, that God is a good principle  of
>evolution.
>
>Now comes the big move:
>God as good principle of evolution directs subatomic particles and Science
>is an authority to appeal to here. Therefore, God has a Scientific basis.
>So, God was in at the ground level and Nous has been emerging ever stronger
>ever since.
>In the beginning God tweaked but as evolution progresses God gets a  grip.
>
>And so Quality is subtly and, i have to say, underhandedly replaced by  God.
>That's what you are up against David.
>Love,
>Mark
>
>
>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/