Re: MD 4th level - The more autonomous level.

From: Arlo J. Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Tue Nov 29 2005 - 16:13:11 GMT

  • Next message: Case: "RE: MD Looking for the Primary Difference"
  • Next message: Arlo J. Bensinger: "RE: MD A Question of Balance / Rules of the Game"
  • Next message: Case: "RE: MD Chaos and its role in Evolution"
  • Next message: Scott Roberts: "Re: andsRe: MD Two Theses in the MOQ"

    [Platt]
    You use the present tense -- innovation OCCURING at all levels. Perhaps
    you could show some evidence that innovation is still occuring at the
    inorganic and biological levels. In my book, evolution at those levels
    ended a long, long time ago. But, if you can show the appearance of a new
    species since homo sapiens, I'll take my position under advisement.

    [Arlo]
    Gee, I dunno. What evidence do you have that inorganic "innovation" is not
    occuring somewhere in the universe? Unless you think the "earth" is the sole
    recipient of Quality's attention in the universe, I think it stands to reason
    that "if it happened here, it could be happening somewhere else".

    [Platt]
    A train consists of a locomotive and cars. Take away either and you no
    longer have a train. But, what drives the train? The cars?

    [Arlo]
    Bad, bad analogy, Platt. The train can function without cars. How about this, a
    moving train relies on a track, an engine, people to operate the controls,
    people to keep the track free of debris and safe, and planners to make sure two
    trains don't collide. Which "drives" the train? All of them. Or, in the MOQ,
    none of them, what drives the train is DQ that drives the collective activity
    of running the train in particular ways and directions.

    [Platt]
    What's been relegated to the dustbin of history is Marxist communism.
    Rand's books still sell in the millions, and capitalism is on the rise
    everywhere.

    [Arlo]
    From Wikipedia, "Rand and her philosophy of Objectivism have been subject to
    various criticisms. In the realm of analytic philosophy, however, it is more
    accurate to say that Rand's work has been mostly ignored. University
    departments considered leaders in the field of analytic philosophy pay scant
    attention to her work. For example, a study of well-regarded departments in
    both the analytic and Continental philosophy traditions[9], produced by Brian
    Leiter, reveals not one department that considers an acquaintance with Rand's
    work a prerequisite for the Ph.D. "

    Although it begrudges that some people in the academy are discussing her work,
    it remains pretty clear that after nearly 50 years of publication no one takes
    her work seriously outside of a few conservative "thinktanks". Of course, I
    know you need to blame this on some vast "liberal conspiracy", but I prefer
    Occam's Razor. "It just ain't no good". As for "selling millions", so does
    Danielle Steele, and yet I'd hardly derive from this her status as a adequate
    philosopher.

    [Arlo previously]
    Look in the mirror. Your physical body is a cell collective.

    [Platt]
    Gee, I don't see any cells.

    [Arlo]
    Because their collective has emerged as a greater organism, one that we
    conveniently think of as an "individual body", but is really the collective
    activity of millions of cells, giving rise to something greater than
    themselves. Do you deny this?

    [Arlo previously]
    Look outside your window, that city is a collective organism formed by
    "individual" biological bodies.

    [Platt]
    Gee, I don't see any organism.

    [Arlo]
    Pirsig did. He writes, "Later he saw there was: this Giant. People look upon the
    social patterns of the Giant in the same way cows and horses look upon a
    farmer; different from themselves, incomprehensible, but benevolent and
    appealing. Yet the social pattern of the city devours their lives for its own
    purposes just as surely as farmers devour the flesh of farm animals. A higher
    organism is feeding upon a lower one and accomplishing more by doing so than
    the lower organism can accomplish alone."

    [Arlo previously]
    Pick up a book on Physics. The knowledge therein is a collective emergent from
    the actions of social individuals. You see them, but that Randian nonsense
    keeps you from "seeing them".

    [Platt]
    Gee. I look in a book I see black marks on a white background. I don't see
    any "knowledge."

    [Arlo]
    That's all you'd see if you didn't have a social language with which to
    interpret, here, and appropriate the voices of others.

    [Platt]
    Eyes see parts. Thinking creates abstract collectives. What you learn in
    Semantics 101 is that words are not same as things, that the puff of wind
    that sounds like "milk" won't feed the baby.

    [Arlo]
    And what is "thinking", Platt? It is a dialogic interaction with the historical
    voices of the collective consciousness. You "think" through this, Platt, no in
    opposition or Randian "isolation" from it.

    [Arlo previously]
    Your physical body is not just a "collection of bone and tissue", but from
    the collective activity of individual cells, a "higher organism" emerges.
    On the cellular level, a virus is no more moral than DNA. But, the emergent
    human body is a higher organism than any individual cell.

    Who you are emerged from your appropriation of the collective consciousness of
    20th century America. Your thoughts echo with the voices of who you've read
    (historical dialogue), people you've talked with, movies, music and other
    cultural dialogues. As you conceptualize your "unique proprietary experience",
    you do so through the structure of the collective consciousness, to which your
    words play back into and become a part of. From these individual activities
    within the field of the collective consiousnes, emerges "higher level
    organisms", such as Quantum Physics, the MOQ, calculus, and so on.

    [Platt]
    Lots of spooky "emerging" goin' on out der. :-) "It was a dark and stormy
    night. Suddenly there was a scream."

    [Arlo]
    Brilliant, Platt. You prefer the notion that "Physics" was out there in space,
    billions of years ago, before time, before mass, just waiting for things to
    "flower" so that it could "apply to something"? Thankfully, Pirsig dismissed
    such foolishness early in his first book.

    But tell me, where was (let's say) "Calculus" four billion years ago? Was it
    hanging out somewhere waiting for the levels to "flower" (as you called it)?

    [Arlo]
    To quote Rob Base and DJ Jazzy Jeff, "It takes two."

    [Platt]
    Who dat?

    [Arlo]
    See, if you knew this, you'd be more fun at parties. ;-)

    Arlo

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    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 2.1.5 : Tue Nov 29 2005 - 17:06:18 GMT