> [Platt] > How else could animals respond other than at the molecular level? > > [Arlo] > So now your claim is that only the cat's molecules responded at one point to > DQ, but not the cat. Is that correct?
I don't have the time or the patience to try to educate you on basic evolutionary mechanics. I had always assumed that everyone participating here was aware of how mistakes in copying strands of DNA produced abnormalities that, if proven advantageous in a particular environment, might be passed on to eventually produce a new species. That you don't know this speaks volumes. > [Platt] > Do you think a cat responds to DQ? If so, how would you know? What would a > cat > do to demonstrate such a response? > > [Arlo] > Anytime a cat responds to "it's better here" it is responding to DQ. A cat, > however, can only respond biologically to DQ, so it lacks the social and > intellectual repertoire of responses "man" has available. A cat's response to betterness is simply a result of a cat's preprogrammed value system we normally call instinct. It's a static pattern having no ability to respond to the creative "source of all things" and the "cutting edge of progress." Pirsig warned against what you apparently support -- making biological quality equivalent to Dynamic Quality. But since you disagree with him on so many issues, this comes as no surprise. > [Platt] > Even a cursory knowledge of evolution would inform you that your questions are > absurd. So there is no point in answering them. > > [Arlo] > See, here's were you get deceptive. They are direct, valid questions that must > be addressed given your philosophical claims. You only claim them "absurd" > because you KNOW that answering them will show your position to be ridiculous. > So you use these types of smoke and mirror tricks. Nice try. You give yourself pat on the back for posing supposedly valid questions and then claim I don't answer them because if I tried they would show how stupid I am compared to you. Welcome to Rigel's world. > Now I can add some others given your latest claim. > > If "only the molecules of cats" could respond to DQ, does that mean that only > the molecules of man respond to DQ? Could the molecules of an adult cat > respond > to DQ? Or only invitro embryo molecules? See above about basic evolution. > [Platt] > Also I find it interesting that you purport to be able to read Pirsig's mind > and correct him as to what he really should have said -- like a teacher > correcting a student. > > [Arlo] > No. Like two adults disagreeing. I would welcome Pirsig's responses to my > questions as well. As I said, nothing ever "lost" the ability to respond to > DQ, > as evolutionary gains were main, certain patterns "gained" a phenomenal new > repertoire of responses. But nothing ever "lost it". When it comes to your "disagreements." with Pirsig, I'll take his side, based on what he has written, any day. That you consider yourself on an intellectual equal to him brings more peels of laughter from the back of the class. > [Platt] > ... especially when you live out "man" when referring to the social level. > > [Arlo] > Yeah, I see what are doing. Distract, evade, distort. In any event, I've made > it clear many times that I don't "leave man out" of the social level, but I do > include certain primates and mammals as evidencing rudimentary social > behaviors. That is in disagreement with Pirsig, as I know quite well. Yes. We all know you think you know better than Pirsig. > [Platt] > Then what can it do? Or a rock? Or a rope? Or a road? I look forward to > believable answers on how such patterns respond to DQ. > > [Arlo] > They respond inorganically. Change the environment, witness a change, > inorganic > responses to DQ. Nothing "marvelous" from our socio-intellectual vantage point > to be sure. How does a rock's response to DQ change the environment? How does a rope witness a change? The laughter from the back fo the class is spreading to include the whole room, no, the whole college. > But let me ask counter. Go way back in paleohistorical time. Before animals. > Before plants. Before amoebas. What do you propose COULD respond to DQ back > then? Rocks? Atoms? And what is it that they could do differently THEN that > they can no longer do? Read Chapter 11 and pay particular attention to the carbon atom and how it responded to subatomic Dynamic forces to create life, a one time event. But I assume you disagree with Pirsig about this, too. As for rocks, ropes, roads and the like, they never have and never will respond to DQ. They are heaps, not wholes, a distinction you seem oblivious to. > I would say "nothing". They could do nothing then that they can't do now. > Their > responses were, then and now, entirely constrained by their inorganic nature. > > Now, take a crack at those questions. Or at least have the intellectual > honesty > to admit you can't answer them without demonstrating the absurdity of your > claims. If its just the same old game with you, just say so and we can end > this > now. So know I don't have intellectual honesty if I don't answer silly questions? OK by me if that's your belief. As I said, "People believe what makes them feel good to believe." In your case it's evident your ego needs to to feel good at all costs. Be my guest. And so this conversation closes. 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/
