[MD] emergence and MOQ

[pholden at davtv.com]

Quoting Heather Perella <spiritualadirondack at yahoo.com>:

>      [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/