Hi Magnus, > Platt Holden wrote: > > Seen from the MOQ the levels consist of moral codes. Codes of physics at > > the lowest level try to dominate the codes of biology which in turn try > to > > overwhelm the codes of society which in turn attempt to smother the > codes > > of reason and intellectual inquiry. These conflicts between levels > reveal > > the harmony within each. The behavior of quantum particles is no more > like > > the behavior of DNA than the behavior of a political rally is like > writing > > a book. I find this way of viewing phenomena not only acceptable but > highly > > satisfying with its explanatory power. The MOQ opens up new vistas of > > understanding, far exceeding the materialist's "spontaneous emergence > from > > increasing complexity" that says nothing about Quality. > > I'm not contending the moral ramifications of the levels, nor the vistas > of > understanding you mention. And the conflicts above is still quite valid > with the > new set of levels, and with the way I use to reason about levels and level > borders. > > Problems occur when there is doubt whether something is biological or > inorganic, > or some other level border. Then it becomes difficult to use morality or > harmony > to resolve the issue.
Well, there may be fringe questions as to whether a virus is inorganic or biological or whether a baboon giving a banana to another baboon is biological or social. But what matters to me is the relative openness of each harmonious level to DQ with higher levels being more moral than the lower because they are more open to DQ. Perhaps that view is too broad for some, but it works for me. Needless to say, I fully respect your approach to the "discrete" issue. Platt 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/
