From: storeyd (storeyd@bc.edu)
Date: Mon May 03 2004 - 03:56:32 BST
Hey all,
dmb wrote:
>DMB: I think the idea that inorganic level patterns have preferences implies
>that
>some kind of consciousness goes all the way down. Its hard to imagine what
>sort of limited awareness there must be for something like an atom or a
>star, but that is the implication.
I think a good way to supplement this discussion re: consciousness,
perception, and inorganic level patterns is to think about "combinations" in
terms of freedom, intention, and time. first, what if wagered that all of
these descriptive terms--consciousness, freedom, quality, and time--are
different ways of referring to the same experience/phenomenon? Take the
freedom/determinism platypi, probably the toughtest nut to crack throughout
most of Western Philosophy, right? The problem as Pirsig shows, is that there
is no problem at all. the problem lies in the question, because the question
is confused; there is no either/or about it. the key to understanding the F/D
debate is to realize that each tier of the totem of being--in our MOQ, all the
levels--has freedom/consciousness/intention/SQ/temporality, and that the more
evolved the level, the greater the degree of wiggle room. correspondingly,
the lower the level, the less individual freedom, but the more collective
possibility.
In other words, atoms can't really do much on their own. they can,
however, combine with and therefore support and be constitutive of every level
above them, they can participate in more levels. notice, this is also because
they have a broader spectrum of temporality; they are more durable, in
spacetime, than any of the levels above them. so while higher level patterns
have more freedom, can manipulate more of the universe, they are less stable.
Hmm...maybe that's a rule we can ascribe to the MOQ: the lower the level, the
more static and entrenched the values are; this would make sense, because
certain static patterns--DNA for example--are virtually unchangeable. this
would also square with the current problems in human evolution, re:
overcoming absolutisms, sectarian warfare, dogma, etc.
But just to boster dmb's proposition, it does seem almost unaviodable to
ascribe SOME SCRAP of DQ/freedom/temporality to the inorganic levels.
-Dave
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 : Mon May 03 2004 - 04:28:35 BST