Dear John (that was fun), I think this post should exist sans Marsha.
Marsha On Dec 24, 2009, at 1:49 PM, John Carl wrote: > Steve, Marsha mentioned: > > I don't ascribe to the view that you attribute to me. I don't see "code of > art" as a level or emerging level. It is instead the particular patterning > "thing" and the levels are the static patterns left in its wake. That is, > intellectual patterns such as philosophical systems, are mediated and > created by an intellect. The intellectual patterns (metaphysics) of the 4th > level are mediated by intellect. Seems obvious, eh? But that's how I > ascribe intellect as the code of art and static metaphysical systems as > making up the content of the 4th level. > > Working down the chain, and just off the top of my head, the code of art > for society is emotion, the code of art for biology is the law known as > "survival of the fittest" and the code of art for the inorganic are the > mechanistic laws of cause and effect. > > > >> On the other hand, for patterns to evolve they have to orginate as >> unpatterned responses to dynamic quality which later become habits or >> patterned behaviors. > > > I don't know what is meant by "unpatterned responses". In fact, the term > "un"patterned gives me gas. It sounds suspiciously like phlogoston to me, > something postulated in order to fit a pre-formed view, with no empirical > evidence supporting it whatsoever. If you said, "pre-patterned" with the > implication that the human valuing agent (nod to Ham) is going to be doing > some patterning in the near future, I'd have an idea what you meant. But as > it is..... > > > But either way you want to think of it, the "code of art" is equated >> with Dynamic morality and is about dynamic-static tension in general >> rather than a new or existing specific type of static pattern of >> value. >> >> > yeah, that's the way I want to think of it. > > > >> "First, there were moral codes that established the supremacy of biological >> life over inanimate nature. Second, there were moral codes that >> established the supremacy of the social order over biological >> life-conventional morals-proscriptions against drugs, murder, adultery, >> theft and the like. > > > Note to Marsha: > > Dogs and humans steal. Lizards and amoeba do not. Social morality is > evident in non-human mammals. If you don't see that, you're trying to get > your puzzle pieces to fit by hammering on them hard to fit the picture you > want to see, not the one that is there. > > But I guess that's ok since everything is only relative. :) > > > John the bah-humbuggerer > 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/ _______________________________________________________________________ Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars... 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/
