[MD] For Peter

[Platt Holden]

Peter: 

I agree that a metaphysics ought to explain how life began, and Pirsig does 
so in Chapter 11 of LIla. You may not agree with his account, but to me it 
makes a lot more sense than the scientific account of "oops."

Platt
 
> Peter:
> 
> I accept that the most accurate philosophical point to be made about the
> wall is that it is an experience.
> What do you think would be the first principle or primary axiom of the
> MoQ?
> Thinking about that is very difficult because straight away the terms I
> might use would all come after that first principle.
> I think the MoQ must correspond or be able to account for Darwinian
> evolution.
> The MoQ is anthropocentric in it's effective limitation of Social and
> Intellectual realms to people, which I am not happy with.
> I think that emotional thinking is the characteristic of the Social
> realm
> and that should include other animals.
> MoQ should be a metaphysical account of how life began as well as how it
> develops.
> 
> Apologies for skipping from one idea to the other.
> 
> Ron:
> To posit how life began can be nothing but speculation,
> we may observe how life develops, personally the usefulness
> of the knowledge of how life began is superfluous to the value
> of it's development. I think the MoQ allows for observation
> of the value play between levels throughout different species.
> 
> What defines the levels differs, dependant on the species observed,
> since
> we may only know our own with any definitive accuracy, consequently
> we may only use our own interpretations as any kind of reference.
> 
> To expect MoQ to "be a metaphysical account of how life began as well as
> how it develops."
> is kinda undercutting what the MoQ is ultimately about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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/