On 2/23/10 10:55 AM, "Arlo Bensinger" <[email protected]> wrote:
[Joseph] Hi Arlo and All, I want to discuss evolution in DQ/SQ terms. Imho evolution is a hierarchical order in existence. Each level has its proper DQ. At the inorganic level imho the DQ is gravity.... [Arlo] I'd say that each level can be "defined" by the variance in agency patterns have at that level to respond to DQ. I don't think "gravity" is DQ, I think the inorganic level is (partially) defined by seeing "gravity" as a specific response those patterns have to DQ. In other words, "how are patterns able to respond to DQ?" is a basic question for analyzing the levels. <snip> Hi Arlo and all, Imho DQ is one aspect of evolution DQ/SQ. The order in existence precedes DQ and the metaphysical description of that order is DQ/SQ. DQ is undefined and SQ is defined. It seems to me that before you can speak of agency you have to acknowledge perceive ability (DQ) and concept ability (SQ) as possible. DQ as a unitary force for evolution denies perceive ability of DQ in levels in evolution. Which DQ? They are merely levels of DQ. That makes evolution a question of faith. IMHO Each level reveals DQ in a different order. Isn¹t DQ the undefined partner in evolution? To propose that an agency like evolution is unpatterned, makes knowledge of evolution questionable. Imho the pattern is DQ/SQ. ³The variance in agency² being attributable to atomic action again denies evolution. Imho evolution seems to be more clearly understood as orders in existence rather than a mode of atomic behavior creating DQ as an agent of change. As to your suggestion that emotions are founded in biology? It seems to indicate that you deny evolution. You regard evolution as biological complexity, a chimera for difference, rather than different levels. Social and intellectual behaviors are also biologically complex and evolution is thoroughly discredited. In your formulation I see no reason for DQ to be undefined, it is merely biologically complex in being the creator of all. For myself I see that levels in existence create biological complexity, cause and effect. Their complexity arises from the different levels in existence e.g., Moon, Earth, Sun. As I reread this I do not know if it touches your point about DQ at all. Is DQ created in evolution? Is the order in existence prior to evolution, and how would I describe it? Is DQ an agent, like God, that creates evolution, an order in existence? I do not see agency in DQ, but merely a meaningful term in an ordered existence. Joe > [Joseph] > Hi Arlo and All, I want to discuss evolution in DQ/SQ > terms. Imho evolution is an hierarchical order in existence. Each > level has its proper DQ. At the inorganic level imho the DQ is gravity.... > > [Arlo] > I'd say that each level can be "defined" by the variance in agency > patterns have at that level to respond to DQ. I don't think "gravity" > is DQ, I think the inorganic level is (partially) defined by seeing > "gravity" as a specific response those patterns have to DQ. In other > words, "how are patterns able to respond to DQ?" is a basic question > for analyzing the levels. > > 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/
