Jan Anders, I spoke out of turn. My mind has been so much on step 3, you see. And my post pertained more to that - the kind of social individual who can intellectualize - that I jumped the gun. Sorry, I'll wait for the discussion to get there before jumping in.
John the over-eager On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 10:59 PM, Jan Anders Andersson < [email protected]> wrote: > John > > It's all static patterns. If a pattern can be considered both as an > organic AND a social pattern, then there is no clear distinction between. > If a pattern must be either organic or social (or at another level) then > there is discrete distinctions between levels. Idon't think there are > anything between because that would be another level. > > The definition of a step, according to Lila, is when a pattern is > dependant upon and using another for it's own purpose then it is at a > superior level. Organic patterns for example are using inorganic patterns > for its own. Chemistry or geology would never be able to create trees or > professors. > > The step two must be somewhere between step one and three. The step is not > the borderline but the beginning of a new level. > > best wishes > > Jan-Anders > > > 28 aug 2014 kl. 01:23 skrev John Carl <[email protected]>: > > > > Afraid? That's a strange assertion. > > > > I thought I made my point clear, but I'll repeat it - construing some > > mechanistic step between levels doesn't make sense in the MoQ becau > > the MoQ relies on undefinable Quality as it's chief means of evolution > > from one level to another. > > There are statically defined rules that work within each level, but > between > > the levels? > > I thought that was more a code of art, than science. > > > > JC > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 12:48 PM, Jan-Anders Andersson < > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Is that NSA code? > >> > >> John > >> > >> I am just curious about our picture of the evolution seen through the > MOQ > >> magnifying glass. RMP says it began with level 1 the inorganic a while > ago. > >> Was the social level then? No. > >> > >> Is the social level present now? Yes. > >> > >> Well somewhere in between was the step. When or what was the start? > >> > >> Can we discuss it together or what are you afraid of? > >> > >> Jan-Anders > >> > >>> 27 aug 2014 kl. 20:19 skrev John Carl <[email protected]>: > >>> > >>> Jan-Anders, > >>> > >>>> On 8/26/14, Jan Anders Andersson <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> Yes > >>>> > >>>> There is a razor too, the dividing principle, known as ethic > >> betterness. The > >>>> betterness of jumping into a superior level. > >>>> > >>>> "So what Phaedrus was saying was that not just life, but everything, > >>>> is an ethical activity. It is nothing else. When inorganic patterns of > >>>> reality create life the Metaphysics of Quality postulates that they've > >>>> done so because it's "better" and that this definition of "betterness" > >>>> -this beginning response to Dynamic Quality-is an elementary unit of > >>>> ethics upon which all right and wrong can be based.” Lila > >>>> > >>>> The hunt for step two is to find the very threshold from organic into > >> social > >>>> betterness. > >>>> Where is it? > >>> > >>> Sometimes when trying to find something, it's helpful to look at its > >>> opposite. I came across a passage on sociopaths, that while it might > >>> be more relevant to step 3, is still relevant in that it shows what an > >>> un-ethical step looks like. > >>> > >>> Taken from Time, Will and Purpose by Randy Auxier: > >>> > >>> The problem of the sociopath is precisely the failure to credit the > >>> *value* of the possible experience of others, and the metaphysics that > >>> follows from such a condition fails to credit the possible reality of > >>> the same. Only with such a perverse move can there be a "problem of > >>> other minds" and other pseudo problems which 20th century philosophy > >>> so often occupies itself. The real issue is not the reality of other > >>> minds, but the tendency among some to trust ungrounded abstractions > >>> above concrete experience, deemed "the philosopher's fallacy" by James > >>> and Dewey. More pointedly, all forms of abstractionism and > >>> reductionism are sociopathic and we lament that this is the current > >>> state of professional philosophy and a great deal of science, both > >>> social and natural. ... The human being who strives to be a person by > >>> serving institutions that have been warped risks taken into himself or > >>> herself the defects of purpose and memory that are immanent in the > >>> activities of the institutions themselves. Thus one can, under the > >>> right circumstances, get individuals such as Hitler, who thinks he is > >>> serving the genuine purposes of the Fatherland by purposing policies > >>> that destroy the very cause he sought to advance, or one can get > >>> scientists such as Dawkins and E.O Wilson, or philosophers such a > >>> Dennett, these little fascists of the intellect ensconced within their > >>> tiny domains of thought who are engaged in the academic and > >>> educational equivalent, cleansing the Reich of human thought of > >>> whatever strikes them as impure. They tell human beings, without > >>> apparent shame and without any hint of humility, that we are nothing > >>> more than our biology or our physical aspects, or whatever the Zyclon > >>> B of their pet theories happens to be, and often this is not even > >>> recognized as a fundamental assault on human dignity and the full > >>> range of the human experience. > >>> > >>> ---- > >>> > >>> Now, I hear you asking me, J-A, what does this have to do with the > >>> step from biological to social patterning? This: It's important to > >>> remember that the evolution we speak of, is not a mechanistic > >>> evolution. DQ is more than that. > >>> > >>> Yours, > >>> > >>> 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/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 > > > > > > > > -- > > "finite players > > play within boundaries. > > Infinite players > > play *with* boundaries." > > 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 > -- "finite players play within boundaries. Infinite players play *with* boundaries." 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
