Magnus, you write: " So it seems, if you - as you
said later on - assume: "the positioning in an
Evolution axis.
However, if you view each level as an axis of their
own, the animal can have value on both the inorganic
and biological axis".
This is another aspect that better be cleared at
the start.The way I see it is this: If one classifies
a number of things in four categories and one calls
those categories 'levels', one is implying that the
members of all four categories have at least one
property in common and that the "level of" that
property is different for each class.
One can classify individuals in four categories
according, for instance, to their educational 'level'
(say, number of years of schooling). One can make
another classification based on their nutritional
level or their income level, etc. but, within each of
them, the criterion used to assign them into groups
must be the same for all the groups. If not, the word
Level is an unhappy choice.
Take for instance this sentence of Pirsig: "
Although each higher level is built on a lower one it
is not an extension of that lower level" . The merits
of this proposition can only be discussed if the
levels refer to the same thing or property; otherwise
'everything goes'.
I wrote that the four categories must be positioned
differently along the same axis (which might run, for
instance, from least evolved to most evolved). Someone
may propose a different axis; that's O.K.; but to
propose that each category is positioned differently
in an axis of its own, (as you do) leaves the matter
wide open so that whatever we may say is valid.
__________________________________________________________
Sent from Yahoo! Mail - a smarter inbox http://uk.mail.yahoo.com
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/
