[MD] Distinguishing Levels

[Heather Perella]

Platt,

     Platt said:  "Like I asked, how does what you
say, if true, move
> evolution towards 
> betterness or indicate the arrival of a new life
> form on the planet?"

     DQ, it's unpredictable.
 
     SA said earlier:  "The intellectual level can
bring us here, but
> > what of the biological level predicting this? 
It's not happening."

     Platt said:  "As far as I know the biological
level can predict
> nothing, nor can the 
> inorganic or social levels."

     Yeap, Dq all the way.

     Platt said:  "Only individual human
> beings can predict, 
> and I predict that we will never observe the
> biological level producing 
> a new life form."

     Do you mean you or me?  Because I have given you
plenty of examples of biological evolution, change in
species, earlier that have been recorded.

     Platt said:  "Of course, as humans we can
> theorize and speculate all 
> we want."

     true

     Platt said:  "The fact that as of now
> > > the looks of your 
> > > baby aren't predictable simply means the
> technology
> > > of genetics still 
> > > has a ways to go. But, all the mechanisms are
> known.
> > > The biological 
> > > pattern of a human being is no mystery."
> > 

     SA earlier:  "Sure a human being, but there are
billions of
> us, the diversity is as high as their are people on
> this earth, and that unpredictability of the biology
is
> > because of the other factors in development that
> > biology, DNA, is not predicting, such as food,
> water, quality of air, etc...  Now the intellectual
level
> > might know this, but how does skin know this?  It
> > doesn't."
> 
     Platt said:  "I'm not sure what you are driving
at. Are you
> suggesting that a new 
> human life form is about to evolve?"

     I'm saying the biological level has DQ, social
level Dq, intellectual level Dq, chaotic level Dq, all
levels have Dq in each level having the inability to
predict beyond the static patterns identified.  What
is unidentified is dynamic quality and in the realm of
unpredictable.

     SA earlier:  "Your talking about evolution here,
I'm not."

     Platt said:  "Sorry. I thought that was the
context of our
> conversation. If you are 
> saying we can't predict which way the wind will blow
> in the next 
> second, I agree. But what that has to do with MOQ
> you'll have to 
> explain to me."

     I was just talking about predictability versus
unpredictability where DQ is the latter due to its'
unknown, unidentifiable quality it is.


> >      Platt said:  "You have a lot less faith in
> > science and technology
> > > than I do."
 
     SA said:  "Science might be able to predict this,
but
> skin? 
> > Come on now, please."

 
     Platt said:  "Are we really talking about the
predictive ability
> of skin? Please."

     Yes we are if you think the biological level can
be predicted or has prediction on its' level, which I
think isn't possible, thus DQ.

> >      Platt said:  "I was speaking about knowing a
> > formula for a
> > > successful metaphysics, 
> > > not about knowing the history of astronomy or
> > > natural science. If you 
> > > know of such a formula, please share it with the
> > > rest of us."
> > 
> >      SA said earlier:  "These are successful
metaphysics of what is. 
> You
> > think highly of science, right.  Well, since these
> > metaphysics turned into science in time, they are
> > successful formula's for metaphysics."
> 
     Platt said:  "Would you mind spelling out the
formula for for a
> successful metaphysics for me and others? I'm all
ears."

     A successful metaphysics is one that sticks
around and is still part of a society.  I would say a
magic-myth oriented culture that has had the same
mythologies of nature spirits and has managed to
survive well, healthy and such, then wouldn't they be
successful?  I think so.

> >      Platt said:  "I think you are saying that
> since
> > you cannot predict
> > > the outcome of a 
> > > spin of inorganic roulette wheel that it
> responds to
> > > DQ. What I am 
> > > saying is nothing in the inorganic, biological,
> or
> > > social levels 
> > > responds to DQ so as to move evolution any
> higher
> > > than what it has 
> > > already accomplished in the life form of a human
> > > being."
> > 
> >      Move evolution any higher?  What does higher
> > mean?  Are you talking about as tall as a mountain
> or
> > as high as the clouds?  As high as a bird flies? 
> They
> > are higher than humankind.  Even the moon and sun
> are.
> 
     Platt said:  "Higher means at a higher moral
level as Pirsig
> describes with a 
> thinking human being at the top."

     Wouldn't a high moral being be humble enough to
say bacteria are the most plentiful creatures on this
earth without much change for some of them for
millions of years, wouldn't that be a more successful
organism due to the, lack of better word, lucky chance
to have had such an early start on this earth and have
survived this long.  Why would some of them need to
change?  Wouldn't they be at the 'top' only morally
identifiable by human beings, since we are of a higher
moral level to say such things.  They would be at the
top since their contentment with their world seems so
settled.  Just like children playing outside.  They
can play and play in touch with DQ much of their time,
and yet so settled with having fun.  Now adults on the
other hand, might be one of the most unsettled
creatures on this planet.  Adults will come up with
all kinds of reasons to name, rename, and make things
better and better on a material, $, and consumer end
of things.  Even the Jihad killers are not content in
settling into a peaceful world, they must fight and
fight and carry on an attitude like little babies
crying thinking the world will want to live such
unsettled, non-contentment, wanting to fight and not
just live peace that is here now kind of life.

Thanks,
SA

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com