Jan Anders, quote A tree for example is using the magnetism between water molecules to pump it up into the top of the tree. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
rootpressure osmotic pump transpirational pull http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transpirational_pull#Transpirational_pull this is an aside off course Adrie 2014-02-08 14:20 GMT+01:00 Jan Anders Andersson <janander...@telia.com>: > Hi Gents, (any Ladies?) > > In our work to refine the metaphysics of Quality I think we must use the > element of time here. Actually, we are talking about step two, as step one > should be the first step from where there where no Organic patterns at all, > before the first change, into the moment after the very first change. A > change implies the presence of time, just as an evolution implies some kind > of order which is a kind of time management. > > RMP: > > "I think it's better to say that time is a static intellectual concept > that is one of the very first to emerge from Dynamic Quality. That keeps > Dynamic Quality concept-free..." > > "The MOQ starts with the source of undifferentiated perception itself as > the ultimate reality. The very first differentiation is probably `change`. > The second one may be `before and after`. From this sense of `before and > after` emerge more complex concepts of time." > > "... according to the Metaphysics of Quality, time and change did NOT act > to evolve the static universe. Only Dynamic Quality did this. "Time" and > "change" are primary concepts used to describe this evolution but they do > not cause evolution any more than Newton's law of gravity causes the earth > to stick together." > > (letter from ROBERT M. PIRSIG to Anthony McWatt, February 23rd, 1998) > > > DNA, RNA or what effect from DQ we see here, RMP talks about the organic > level as a level that is different from the inorganic level. One difference > is that the superior level is using the lower level for its own purposes. A > tree for example is using the magnetism between water molecules to pump it > up into the top of the tree. > > I however think that the main difference between the levels is strongly > dependant to time. Organic patterns are very stable by time. Atoms and > molecules doesn't change very much by time. Hydrogen atoms are the same > since Big Bang etc. Also, chemical reactions have an time order. Chemical > reactions doesn't work backwards, thanks to The Laws of Thermodynamics... > > I think that the main difference between the inorganic and the organic > level is related to time this way: > As the inorganic patterns became more and more complex, their duration in > time went the other way, the more complex structure the less duration. The > solution that brought into the organic level is the self reproduction > served to us by Dynamic Quality. Self reproduction overcomes the problem of > depletion by age as new fresh younglings are made. Self reproduction in > more than one copy of every original also brings in an economic advantage > as viruses can spread in masses and find places where chances to survive is > better. We should see the possibilities for a free choice to stay in the > acid or move not only as an individual choice but as a species with large > number of copies where the free choice is made by those who happen to be > away from the acid. > Mutations is also a new possibility as the reproductionary systems fails > and some new versions show up to be more fit to the environment than others > and Voila, inorganic evolution is here. Time and order is still a very high > quality idea as depletion, reproduction and evolution by mutations is very > hard to understand and explain without a correct, working, concept of time. > > Thanks to DQ, we have more brands of self reproducing vegetables than > Motorcycles. > > Jan-Anders > > > 7 feb 2014 x kl. 13.36 skrev Horse: > > > Hi Dave > > > > I agree with much of what you say but it's still very important to > remember that DNA-based life is no more than one possible way for life to > exist and that it involves an environment and a context. Not having > experienced something (or maybe mis-interpreting something that we do > experience) should not blind us to the probability that it exists. Isn't > this part of the 'Cleveland Harbor Effect'? > > > > "Then he remembered the little "discrepancies" he had seen on the chart > when he came in. When a buoy had a "wrong" number on it he presumed it had > been changed since the chart was made. When a certain wall appeared that > was not shown, he assumed it had been built recently or maybe he hadn't > come to it yet and he wasn't quite where he thought he was. It never > occurred to him to think he was in a whole different harbor! > > It was a parable for students of scientific objectivity. Wherever the > chart disagreed with his observations he rejected the observation and > followed the chart. Because of what his mind thought it knew, it had built > up a static filter, an immune system, that was shutting out all information > that did not fit. Seeing is not believing. Believing is seeing. > > If this were just an individual phenomenon it would not be so serious. > But it is a huge cultural phenomenon too and it is very serious. We build > up whole cultural intellectual patterns based on past "facts" which are > extremely selective. When a new fact comes in that does not fit the pattern > we don't throw out the pattern. We throw out the fact. A contradictory fact > has to keep hammering and hammering and hammering, sometimes for centuries, > before maybe one or two people will see it. And then these one or two have > to start hammering on others for a long time before they see it too." > Pisig, Lila, Ch.26 > > > > This isn't to say that we should believe any old nonsense, but that we > remain open to DQ and by sticking rigidly to a definition as the only > possibility (because that is all we appear to have experienced) then there > is very real likelihood that new experience is inadvertently rejected. > > The MoQ simply states that biological patterns evolve from inorganic > patterns - not that DNA-based life evolves from RNA or other specific > complex molecules. Remaining open to other possibilities is one way of > following DQ. > > > > Cheers > > > > Horse > > > > > > On 02/02/2014 16:03, david wrote: > >> Horse said to dmb: > >> > >> At the risk of misinterpreting what Ian's saying, I think what he means > is that, as a generalisation, 'life' is the next step up from 'matter'! > What we know as life is based around the double helix and involves DNA, > genes, proteins etc. but this is only one possible way that life may have > emerged. It's a big universe and we only have a sample of one at the > present time so to say that life = DNA is a big step in the wrong direction > cos we just don't know about other ways in which life may come about. ...A > metaphysics needs to be a generalisation that can be applied to all > situations and contexts regardless of specifics - the specifics should > conform to the general theory of what constitutes what is and isn't 'real'. > >> > >> > >> dmb says: > >> Right, we just don't know about other ways in which life may come > about. That's what I was getting at when I said, "DNA-based life isn't just > the most obvious kind, I think, but rather the only kind we know of." As I > understand it, the MOQ's radical empiricism says that philosophers have no > business talking about things outside of experience, no business talking > about what James called "trans-experiential" entities and "metaphysical > fictions". And this is not an arbitrary rule but rather an assertion about > what we can rightly consider to be "real". (If it is known in experience, > then it must be included in the philosophers account and, by the same > token, if it is not known in experience philosophers should keep it out of > their accounts.) I think life that is NOT based on DNA would qualify as > something that is outside of experience. One can imagine or speculate but > nothing more. > >> > >> > >> When we adopt the radical insight that Man is a participant in the > creation of all things, every last bit of it, then the universe is not a > separate reality to be discovered but rather a heap of analogies based on > experience. Analytic philosophers like to talk about what true and false in > all possible worlds but I think the radical empiricism just kind of shakes > his head at that kind of hypothetical abstraction. > >> > >> "Abstraction, functioning in this way, becomes a means of arrest far > more than a means of advance in thought. It mutilates things; it creates > difficulties and finds impossibilities; and more than half the trouble that > metaphysicians and logicians give themselves over the paradoxes and > dialectic puzzles of the universe may, I am convinced, be traced to this > relatively simple source. THE VICIOUSLY PRIVATIVE EMPLOYMENT OF ABSTRACT > CHARACTERS AND CLASS NAMES is, I am persuaded, one of the great original > sins of the rationalistic mind." -- William James (Emphasis is James's) > >> > >> As Charlene Seigfried puts it, paraphrasing William James, > "abstractionism had become vicious already with Socrates and Plato, who > deified conceptualization and denigrated the ever-changing flow of > experience, thus forgetting and falsifying the origin of concepts as > humanly constructed extracts from the temporal flux." (William James's > Radical Reconstruction of Philosophy, 379.) > >> > >> > >> > >> 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 > >> > > > > -- > > > > "Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production > deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid." > > -- Frank Zappa > > > > > > --- > > This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus > protection is active. > > http://www.avast.com > > > > 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 > > 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 > -- parser 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
