On Wednesday 23 July 2008 11:09 PM Krimel answers Joe: [Krimel on 7/22]
Among the many reasons why I regard the "levels" as secondary is that they are not even remotely "discrete" as Pirsig claims. While the confusion is most obvious at the intellectual level, it exists even at the inorganic level which is not "discrete" from the biological level at least not in the way Pirsig frames it. All life on earth is based on carbon chemistry. In fact carbon chemistry is its own branch of chemistry. It is called organic chemistry. But Pirsig places it on the inorganic level. One of the problems some of our intellectually challenged brethren here on the MoQ have with evolutionary theory is how life begins. However and whenever the division between the living and the nonliving began it certainly involved organic chemistry and when we look at life itself on a molecular level we see no clear distinction between what is alive and what is inert. [Joe replies] I disagree that ³levels² are secondary in that they are not even remotely ³discrete². The vocabulary for discussing levels is undefined/definedDQ/SQ. [Krimel answers] I guess we must agree to disagree then because in my view the ONLY term undefined in the MoQ is "Quality". It is not defined because it changes and it known chiefly as a direct perception. DQ and SQ are aspects of Quality and I see no reason why they can not be precisely identified and defined in any given set of circumstances. The "levels" should at least in principle be easily defined although as we have seen they seem to resist being pinned down. [Joe now] As far as I know you I admire you very much and I am sorry if I seemed confrontational with ³I disagree!² I feel at an early loss agreeing to disagree. IMO we have a different view of the ³existence² of undefined quality? Is ³existence² a necessary term in discussing ³quality² and in that discussion is ³existence² undefined? I say yes that there are undefined levels in ³existence² which differentiates ³undefined² quality at the individual level. Though defined measurements at the molecular level may not distinguish undefined differences still ³undefined² is a proper way to describe capabilities in a description of levels, e.g. social or intellectual. Joe On 7/23/08 11:09 AM, "Krimel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > [Joe] > IMO This is a much better observation than the > periodic table of elements, Hydrogen, Helium, etc. Hell if I can¹t name > more than a couple of elements, my education has been sadly neglected. I > would much rather propose an order in existence lower to higher or higher to > lower depending on your point of view. The periodic table is a nightmare in > a description of life, as you point out. > > [Krimel] > Perhaps a bit more study might help but the periodic table just specifies > the configuration of chemical elements. It doesn't have much to do with life > other than help us identify its constituent parts. > > [Joe] > As far as a clear distinction > between what is alive and what is inert, I agree the molecular level is no > place to look. I guess how I go from 1 to 2, reproduction, might show that > the organic level exists differently from the collision at the inorganic > level. Not that the inorganic level does not have a presence in the organic > level. It just exists differently. > > [Krimel] > Again my point is that while there may be qualitative distinctions that can > be made, figuring out were to draw the line is a bit arbitrary and in every > instance there are problems with where Pirsig draws his lines. > > > 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/ 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/
