Hi SA
> 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.
Hmm, I think we talking about two different things.
It's one thing to be open to change, i.e. to take in new observations and if
needed, adjust the theory.
It's a completely other matter to state that the theory itself is soft, fuzzy
and vague. I don't agree to that regarding the static levels, not at all.
>>> 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.
Yes, we must differentiate between an ant and the anthill. It's quite easy to
see the social bonds of the anthill. And it doesn't take that much to convince
someone that an anthill is a social pattern.
But it doesn't really stop there. And this is where people just turn away and
laugh at me. The ant is also a social pattern. It's *not* held together by
inorganic value, because when the inorganic patterns are all that's left of the
ant, i.e. when it dies, the inorganic matter will eventually fall apart.
The ant is also not held together by biological value. Biological value can't
really hold anything together. Biological patterns are senses - taste, smell,
touch - the senses by which the social pattern holds the parts of the ant
together. Exactly like the anthill uses different biological signals to keep it
working.
When people say something like "an ant *is* a biological pattern", they have no
clue. It's usually the first step of making a mess of the levels. Biological
patterns are the senses that the animal reacts to in order to survive, it *is*
not the animal.
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/
