[Platt] For the sake of common sense if nothing else I would interpret the MOQ as positing that the inorganic patterns of value that "experience" inorganic values are limited to particles, atoms, and molecules that are essential components of the human brain...
[Arlo] So an electron that is part of my brain "experiences", but an electron that is part of a rock "does not"? Is "man" so special now that an electron that is privileged enough to be part of a human brain is the only electron that experiences at all? Again, as I've said, if we truly hold that Quality is the Source, and this value/experience is the stuff from which all things are built, then I see it as quite absurd to deny value/experience (Quality) to all of nature, using the MOQ as a guide for what is possible on each successive level. [Platt] How particles, atoms and molecules managed to evolve into organisms (whose capacity to experience is hardly in doubt) is as much a mystery today as it has ever been. Pirsig’s explanation of "betterness" is a good as any and certainly better than "emergence" which explains nothing. [Arlo] Pirsig's MOQ is one of emergence. We've been through that. Biological patterns emerge from collective activity of inorganic patterns. I'm not sure if you think the MOQ brings some type of "extra-natural" intent into the picture, kind of like a God that designed and then built "man", but I see no "intent" within the MOQ. Like Case has long offered, the MOQ is best described by "AHA!" (or maybe "AHA! That's better!!!), where Dynamic advances appear and are latched and over time these "AHA!" moments, after a bunch of false starts and failed latchings, led to us. No pre-divined intent. No extra-natural "plan". Just lower level patterns collectivizing, emergence, Dynamic advances and static latching. 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/
