Hi Matt, Steve and all, "Until we get to beings...". I take this to mean an acceptance of an evolutionary schema of reality. How to decide a rationality for a schema for evolution?
For myself using a metaphysics DQ/SQ described by Pirsig, I judge evolution to be a hierarchical order SQ in DQ existence. Morality is a logical conclusion from the realization SQ of an order in existence, DQ/SQ. There is no description of an order possible until the level of self-consciousness is achieved. For myself I see this as the third level in evolution, inorganic SQ, organic1 SQ , organic2(self movement) SQ, emotion (self- consciousness) DQ only, intellectual DQ/SQ, higher emotional DQ, higher intellectual DQ. The last two levels describe levels in DQ consciousness only of those recognized historically as performing heroic actions recognized throughout time. This works for me as a schema for evolution, levels in existence. It seems there is not only mathematics, but also a lot of faith in such a schema. The logic of math SQ follows a metaphysics DQ/SQ. 1 is defined in mathematics 0 is not, and division by 0 in the logic of mathematics returns an error message. Joe On 8/15/11 2:37 PM, "Matt Kundert" <[email protected]> wrote: <snip> > Steve said that moral responsibility doesn't start to make sense "until > we get to beings that have social patterns because only such > beings > have behavior which is modifiable through praise and blame." 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/md/archives.html
