> > SA previously: This is why I find the levels an
analogy of
> the moq. They are useful, but to take the levels
too
> > literally is to say that static patterns are all
> the exist.
Magnus:
> Not at all! That's absolutely not what I mean.
SA: I know.
SA previously:
> > Dynamic quality is still here. The levels
> > are, as we know, static patterns.
Magnus:
> Absolutely right!
> And since, as you said, the levels *are* on that
> static side of quality,
> we *can* define them as rigid as humanly possible
> without any negative
> consequence whatsoever.
SA: I would say being too rigid on the static side
might have one not be open enough to change or in
other words, the natural seasonal variation to put it
simply.
> > Magnus previously:
> On the other hand, ants are not
> >> held together by
> >> inorganic value, there's no gravity,
> >> electromagnetism etc. involved.
> > SA: When you said this above, I said that ants
are held together by inorganic value. Peer deep
enough, using technology without which the inorganic
level may not have been known in the first place to
validate with evidence, and you will see this
inorganic level bonding as carbon and other atoms,
elements, etc... in ants holding them together, being
the static foundation of their static patterning.
But, it does seem as if your use of inorganic
doesn't bond ants, you meant ants plural, in ant
communities. At the founding level, it is inorganic,
but your focus was on the social.
SA
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
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/
