[MD] How far do you go to preserve individual life?

[Magnus Berg]

On 2010-09-17 21:59, ARLO J BENSINGER JR wrote:
> [Magnus]
> Didn't you read my complete post? I compared that dependency which you defend,
> with other, much more direct dependencies.
>
> [Arlo]
> My apologies. I am used to words meaning what they mean. A fish is dependent on
> water, it may survive for a short while when taken out of water, but it will
> eventually die. This is dependency. Just because it does not die IMMEDIATELY
> does not make it less of dependency.

Ok, ok. There are different degrees of dependency, or rather time 
frames. But why would the intellectual level be so much less dependent 
on lower levels than all other levels are? And especially since we *can* 
find a better dependency.

> [Magnus]
> I'm sorry but you're simply stuck in old ways of thinking. It's *not* more
> accurate to my analogy.
>
> [Arlo]
> It is, Magnus, and I'm sorry unable to see that.

I explained why it was not accurate. Would you mind doing the same?

> Without the surround of sociality, intellect will never appear. When deprived
> of sociality, intellect inevitably decays. This is dependency in every sense of
> the word.

Not the same sense as other levels.

> You can not remove a lower level from the MOQ and expect a higher level to
> continue.

I'm not. I just explained how I replace it, in my last post to Platt a 
few hours ago. I know very well that everyone else have a hard time 
swallowing that, because it's sooo different than what they're used to 
thinking. But it's a way better dependency ladder than anything else 
I've seen. And it really works for everything, just as a metaphysics 
should. It doesn't have to hide behind "well, it's just an analogy", or 
"it's just a map", because there's where we usually end up with the 
classical level ladder.

	Magnus