[MD] Social Darwinism

[David M]

Krim

yes, if you lose the M from SOM it is a way to speak that has its uses,
and yes the M in MOQ is a problem, but only in theory, as MOQ has
little influence and has stated qualifications, but probably not enough
I'd say, if you push me. Somehow we need a provisional metaphysics.

DM

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Krimel" <Krimel at Krimel.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 6:13 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] Social Darwinism


> [David M]
> But how can you explain this difference betwen animate and inanimate
> patterns/processes. Seems to assume SOM to me? The MOQ enables
> us to see it another way, some of us here think this is a way that makes
> more sense, at least it offers a less dualistic way to look at what we 
> experience.
> 
> [Krimel]
> Nature offers up a variety of forms of animation; dust devils, fire,
> lightening, brains. Taking subjects and objects seriously does not confer
> upon them metaphysical significance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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/
>