Hi Bo,
funny enough, you demanded my intellectual intervention:
> Marco, please apply
> your rested intellect on this.
and now you blame me for bringing SOM arguments.... well, according to your
"fixed idea" that's the only thing my intellect can do! :-)
anyway....
======================
CREATION OR EVOLUTION ?
======================
Marco
> > Indeed, we have not a decent explanation of when, how and where life
> > popped out from the inorganic level.
Bo
> Don't we? Except you want a scientific (SOM) explanation. You will never
get
> one!
Marco
I think SOM science can find a decent explanation of when, how and where...
it's not equipped to explain WHY, but that's another story.
Bo
> Still, intellect's search for an objective scientific explanation was an
> enormous value increase, the negative effect is that (as SOM) this led to
> relegating the social reality to the "subjective" scrap-heap ...because
in
> SOM there is no "social value"
Marco
Indeed. But I'm just looking at the (in)famous objective sphere
(Inorganic+Biological). Here science can do a lot, and the MOQ does not
reject the scientific "truths" (when, how, where...) about the first two
levels.
Marco
> > I think the MOQ would call evolution also the "creation" of a new
> > level.
Bo
> Er ... I take it to mean that all levels' emergence are "creations" which
is
> 100% correct. There is nothing that sets the biological one apart, and
> looking at the other "creations" we see that the design vs chance is
> irrelevant. It's always the lower level's sophistication (an ambiguous
pattern)
> that gave foothold for the next development.
Marco
Don't know if I've been clear. I was meaning that the MOQ looks at Darwinian
evolution as a particular phase of an overall evolution throughout the four
levels. That is, we should label all history - the emergence of new levels
included - as "evolution" rather than "creation" . The design vs chance is
not irrelevant as argument, as it has been discussed for millennia. It is
just impossible for science to solve it as science is not equipped for the
"why" question; and moreover SOM can't manage chance very well as it is
neither subjective nor objective. The MOQ, with its "which comes first"
method, clarifies that design presumes a mind, and mind is the latest
"sophistication". We see a design as this is our current way of "creating"
our world... and we can't easily accept the existence of other "mechanisms"
leading to beauty and complexity.
About chance, I see it as a way to switch static behaviors off, so I think
it exists wherever there is freedom of selecting an action (think of the
classic imagine of the traveler selecting the destination pointing a finger
on the world map). I also think that at the inorganic level chance is the
only way to a dynamic behavior. At the above levels, chance becomes step by
step less relevant. It takes too time to "try everything".
=======================
WHO MOVES MY LIMBS ?
=======================
Bo
> Whether
> life "exploits" matter can be discussed, at least it uses it for its own
means
> ...not by altering inorganic values (as in Platt's experiment) but taking
> advantage of them.
Marco
I think we should clarify what we mean by "altering inorganic values".
Pirsig refers to inorganic values as -for example- the values that hold the
atoms of glass together. When I eat a bit of chocolate, I indeed alter the
inorganic values holding the atoms of milk and cocoa together... and take a
very tasteful "advantage" too! I don't know of biological
alterations/utilizations of subatomic values, but I can't exclude them (I
guess Magnus would exclude them, according to his "level 0" idea).
Marco
> > Let me add something about the tests on "mind" affecting "matter": you
> > are right, when I decide to move my hand, this is a clear example of
> > mind moving matter.
Bo
> Seen in a SOM context.... was my point, and also that SOM's mind/matter
> divide is false. Matter moves mind just as easily!
Marco
Agree on the SOM context. In a MOQ context, I'd say that intellect moves
inorganic *values* (through the intermediate levels), while the inorganic
level is blind to the above levels. So it doesn't move intellectual
*values*. I eat chocolate.... the chocolate does not eat my mind. My
thoughts use my brain cells. My brain cells don't use my thought.
Marco
> > We also must remember that no one else can move my
> > hand.
Bo
> ...still in a SOM context, but your limb can be biologically - um -
"roused"
> and you can be socially coaxed or forced to move.
Marco
Society coaxes my social "ego", that moves my limb. Example: the Bodo social
context can't move my limb unless you send me an e-mail or something like
that; then, when the social message coming from Bodo will be part of my
social self, and not refused, my limb will be moved.
Marco
> > There must be a borderline between what I can move and what I
> > can't.
Bo
> Seriously it's the "I/body" (S/O) notion which is wrong.
>
Marco
Wrong, false.... it works, sometimes. Pirsig does not delete the self (think
of "cruising blues"). He redesigns it as a "software", a mix of patterns of
the four levels.
Ciao,
Marco
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 25 2002 - 16:06:20 BST