Chris
> [Magnus]
>> Sure it is. It's in direct conflict with your (and Bo's) claim that
>> symbols are only social value.
>
> Oh, come now. This is just nonsense. It still isn't in conflict with
> anything within a MOQ context. We will keep getting back to this.
I guess you mean you'll get back to it in another post. Didn't see
anything about it in this one.
> About all of this. Evolution happens within each level as well - indeed,
> that's mostly where it happens. New levels develop very rarely, and the fact
> that the static biological patterns evolve to such a sophisticated level
> that they (within a social level frame perhaps) can handle advanced symbol
> manipulation doesn't say anything about the big picture. There still isn't a
> trace of a level conflict, and that needs to be there for it to be a MOQ
> level.
You sound like a politician. You claim your own truths but there's no
evidence to back it up.
I've said it before and what you say above with your "big picture" just
begs me to say it again:
Your "big picture" is actually only a very constrained human-centered
view from within you own mind. (And yes, the word mind *can* be used in
a MoQ discussion. It's just a more complex thing to explain in MoQ terms
than it is in SOM.) To see the *real* big picture, you need to get out
of your own head and look at real things, not just think about how they
make you feel.
Another thing, you claim that extending the intellectual level
(downwards from your definition) makes it pointless. Well, pointless is
exactly what I'd like to call your biological level. It's actually
nothing more than what is usually referred to as biology, and as such,
such a MoQ level would add nothing to the current scientific
understanding of what biology is, i.e. pointless.
Magnus
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/
