> [Arlo] > I already answered this earlier today. Now, why don't you take a crack at > some of those questions... Speculate, guess, c'mon... > > 1. Could animals ever respond to DQ?
No. > 2. How did their actions differ between "then" and "now"? No difference. > 3. Is responding to DQ a matter of having specific biological features? No. > 4. If so, then how did anything else ever respond to DQ? Luck > 5. If no, then why did animals stop responding to DQ? If no, to what? > And since you now say that the social and intellectual levels are > responsible for our ability to respond to DQ, I ask these questions... > > 6. Before man (and these levels) how did things respond to DQ? Luck > 7. How was that different than today (for those things)? No difference. But, chances of lightning striking twice in the same place is extremely remote. > 8. Did animals in North America stop responding to DQ when humans in Africa > gave rise to social patterns? No connection. Apparently you believe that everything responds to DQ every moment of every day ad infinitum. I believe based on Pirsig's explanation of evolution in Chapter 11 that I asked you to read that a single atom or animal at one time responded to the moral force of DQ to advance evolution. With greater versatility brought about by the advent of humans, responses to DQ have increased. But, those responses that leave to further evolutionary progress are still few and far between. Which is why certain giant individuals like Galileo, Newton, Einstein, Plato, Aristotle, Pirsig, Michangelo, Titian, Monet, Bach, Beethoven, and Rachmaninov are universally celebrated today, while you and I are not. It's the same story, your collectivist view vs. my individualist view. 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/
