[MD] Distinguishing Levels

[Platt Holden]

SA,

>      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.

But only a living being can perceive or adjust to DQ. 

>    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.

But only a living being can perceive or adjust to DQ.

>      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.

A "new life form" doesn't mean a change in the mosquito population.

>      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.

I don't think DQ can be defined as the unpredictable. As Pirsig said 
many times, DQ can't be defined. Here you are defining it. 
 
>      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.

I asked for a formula we could use to create a successful metaphysics. 
You've simply said a successful metaphysics is one that survives. 

> 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.

IMO, what puts the thinking human being at the top of evolution is his 
higher consciousness and capacity to control his environment. That is 
good, unless you think it would be better to be a lower life form.

Platt