Quoting "Laycock, Jos (OSPT)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Hi Platt > I'd say everything that happens IS DQ, and that all "things" ARE experience. > If something is a static pattern in "something else" then it's constituent > material IS that "something else". A eddy in water is still water.
When the tide goes out is that DQ? > Static patterns change into new static patterns and that isn't a "response to > DQ" > it IS DQ. > An animal is a static pattern in dynamic quality - the divide between static > and > dynamic is one of derivative order, its all the same stuff. By "derivative" you mean? > A SOM approach to an animal is to say either it has mind separate from its > matter, > or that it's all matter. You're mapping SOM onto MOQ (per Pirsig's own model > (SODV)) and assigning biological SQ to within the matter realm. To be > explicit you > seem to say: Humans are "mind" and "matter" (SQ meets DQ) animals are all > "matter" > (SQ). You can quite happily have that view within the MOQ, but as I see it, > it's > not an MOQ question in the first place - Debating the degree to which an > animal > exerts free will is the same discussion in a scientific setting as it is in a > metaphysical one, and neither provides an answer. Don't follow you. What I am saying, with few exceptions, is that animals are static patterns of value. > Proper zealous application of a(neo)MOQ should (IMO) exclude all this. > DQ being synonymous with experience/awareness, any static pattern written in > it > cannot be divorced from it. No dividing lines. > An animal, (like a rock and like a human) does stuff, and it "does stuff" > because > it has unknown but deonstrably real motives, these may be very simple, but; a > preference/ is a preference/ is a probability/ is a value. > The DQ is what the animal is, so it can't help but have direction, alongside > this > there is the pattern that describes it's form and its behaviours but these > are the > "hows" not the "whys". > Mechanisitic explantions of behaviours lead to infinite regress, you never > get to > a motive, DQ solves that but only if its reach is extended to (exhaustively) > all > things. Motives can be and often are static patterns of value, like the motive to survive. > Lila sets humans apart 'cos its just wrong. The MOQ places humans morally superior to biological and inorganic patterns, but recognizes that without those patterns humans could not have evolved nor continue to exist. I see nothing wrong about that. Platt ------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/ 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/
