[Platt] Please notice the past tense: "they've done so . . ." [Arlo] Which says nothing to the statement that "it's "better" and that this definition of "betterness" — this beginning response to Dynamic Quality...""
You keep saying "I can't answer these questions", but that's simply avoidance. As to "when a cat became a cat", its a matter of biological evolution. There was a time when a given pattern was not a cat, and a time when it was. The difference is biological. And it is that "difference" which you can't answer at all from your view. Could animals ever respond to DQ? That's a simple yes or no. If they could, what was the difference between "animals then" and "animals now"? All this avoidance is simply to give "man" some false transcendence of the cosmos. You say quite adamantly that "animals can not respond to DQ". I ask "could they ever?". Speculate on how they differed? You avoid this because the only answer that makes any sense is that they could respond to DQ biologically then just as they can now. The difference in man is not "responding to DQ", but "responding to DQ from the vantage of the social and intellectual levels of which his "self" is constructed". Because if it is some biological trait that sets man apart, then animals NOR ANYTHING ELSE could have ever responded to DQ. And if animals could have repsonded to DQ at one time, then they must have had the biology to enable this. Did they lose it? And again, how did they behave any differently? If you say that at one time DQ was experienced by animals through their biology, but that this was lost when man "invented" social patterns, I ask "did animals in North America lose their ability to respond to DQ when man in Africa developed social patterns"? These are the inconsistencies and illogical things you bring into play with your claim. So try to answer them, Platt. Or think about why you can't. And if you want to speculate a few answers, and toss them around, I'm game. In the meantime, we've said our two bits. Here are a few teased apart for easy dealing. 1. Could animals ever respond to DQ? 2. How did their actions differ between "then" and "now"? 3. Is responding to DQ a matter of having specific biological features? 4. If so, then how did anything else ever respond to DQ? 5. If no, then why did animals stop responding to DQ? Let's toss those around. Speculate. Guess. Otherwise its pointless to continue. Because I can answer them from my view quite simply and consistently. 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/
