Hi Platt
> A little fuzziness here and there is OK. I don't know of any category that
> can't be accused of being a little fuzzy at the edges. For example, biologists
> are still arguing about what constitutes a species.
I disagree. "Species" is just a word that everyone has their own definition of,
but even if they did come up with a good definition, it would be fuzzy anyway
because the word is just a measure of how much one animal is different from
another, so of course it gets fuzzy.
A metaphysics, on the other hand, is a completely different matter. A
metaphysics is supposed to describe what types of stuff reality is made of and
how that stuff interact with other stuff. And if the metaphysics is fuzzy, the
physics based on that metaphysics gets (at least) exponentially fuzzier. But
the
physics in our universe seems pretty unfuzzy to me, which means that a
metaphysics describing that physics must be pretty rigid.
>> 2. The dimensional aspect of the levels gets hidden and is replaced by a
>> ladder
>> view, which only causes arguments about what thing belongs where. The
>> inorganic
>> value of a thing is not removed just because it's alive. In other words, you
>> still have weight, even though you happen to have legs to move that weight
>> around.
>
> If you keep in mind that upper levels are supported by the lower I don't
> see a problem. As for arguments, they will always occur no matter how you
> divide up experience. So they're unavoidable.
Ok, I see your point about this one. No arguments here. :)
>> 3. In my view, animals are societies of organs, but that doesn't mean they
>> lose
>> their biological value. If you use your level rule above, it would end up in
>> the
>> social level, but that might not be the best way to describe an animal. (In
>> fact, I'd even raise it to the intellectual level. Please read back a few
>> posts
>> in this thread to see why.)
>
> Like Pirsig, I would reserve the social level to human beings so as to avoid
> the issues you raise which muddies the waters without adding much to the
> evolutionary moral hierarchy.
I know, I know. I'm feeling pretty alone about this one. But I won't budge
until
someone comes with a good counter argument. And since I haven't seen one since
I
wrote the essay 9 years ago, I have a feeling it will take a while.
Magnus
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/
