[Krimel] It seems kind of self serving to state, as a creature already evolved from swamp scum, that this is a better station than that.
[Arlo] The question is, if it is "better" to evolve into homo sapiens than swamp scum, why doesn't swamp scum evolve into homo sapiens? Or, if swamp scum doesn't evolve into homo sapiens, does this make it immoral? Existentially (or otherwise) inferior? "Betterness" is highly and unavoidably contextual. And it is often used to justify an existential superiority that draws from the arrogant presumption that "man" is above and apart from the world around us. That said, "betterness" is Quality. But it is "better" to say that "some patterns evolved into homo sapiens because it was better for them to do so", a usage that maintains the contextual and ecological specificity of the term, than to make mostly meaningless comments like "being homo sapiens is better than X". In other words, when "better" is used to illuminate Quality relationships in an ecological context, it is a Good term. When "better" is used to develop acontextual hierarchies of superiority, it is a poor term. I am listening to the Ramones right now because it is "better" for me to do so, but that does not mean listening to the Ramones is better for all people and all times. 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/
