Dt, I'm reading you and liking it a lot. An interesting point that you seemed to have missed - biomass has achieved the ability to eat stardust and shit sunshine. A little focused effort and we could probably turn our planet into a star.
But other than that quibble, I liked your triadic being of stardust, biomass and sunshine. Elegegant metaphysical formulation indeed. > . An even more > troubling is Lovelock¹s Gaia Hypothesis that is looking more and more > likely > to be true in some form or other. It suggests weather and atmosphere are > hybrid class of phenomena that are dependant on some of the inorganic laws > and some of biological laws. Kind of bridging the gap making the > discreteness claim harder to defend. Is weather primarily inorganic or > biological? A little of both and what level do you assign it to? Does > weather have ³life²? Not in any of our common understandings of what ³life² > is. (One uncommon one, Christopher Alexander¹s, treats ³life² just as RMP > does quality, but that would just confuse the issue at hand even more.) > > Well maybe. But maybe it would clarify it a bit more. The best definition of good I know is the life-force. Those patterns which tend to increase biodiversity (distinguishing organ from cancer) are good. The rest of your dialogue is very interesting, but I'll leave my own commentary at these two points. Thanks for Writing! John 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/
