[MD] The MOQ's First Principle

[Heather Perella]

     [Case]
> SA mentions evolution. During early 70's Science
> magazine has an ape on the
> cover who was a hybrid between an siamang and a
> gibbon. There are two
> species of the lesser apes that are actually
> separate genuses. I am not of
> fan of taking taxonomy seriously.

     Do you take gene 'taxonomy' more seriously?  I
can't remember what's that version of taxonomy called?

     [Case]
> Ian mentions the
> problems with Pirsig's
> levels 3 and 4. I am not convinced there is a rigid
> distinction between 1
> and 2. After all carbon molecules are the building
> blocks of life and
> organic chemistry in not part of the biological
> level.

     Wouldn't the established distinctions, already
noticed or newly discovered, on each level be static,
and what you are noticing Case, this "I am not
convinced there is a rigid distinction between 1 and
2."  As you also mention, problems between 3 and 4. 
This allows 'room', 'space', freedom to be more exact,
for each level.  The moral codes are between each
level and Pirsig defines these moral codes as follows:
 "What was emerging was that the static patterns that
hold one level of organization together are often the
same patterns that another level of organization must
fight to maintain its own existence. Morality is not a
simple set of rules. It's a very complex struggle of
conflicting patterns of values." (Lila; Ch. 13)  Thus,
the non-distinction that your finding is this,
"...very complex struggle..."  This is where I see
dynamic morality, that original split, being an event
with static quality, thus, all levels, on all levels,
and between all levels.  This is how the static levels
don't turn dead.


night snow with glowing red embers,
SA 


 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.
http://new.mail.yahoo.com