[MD] shrimps, pissed to death

Wed Feb 9 09:46:06 PST 2011

Ps , some goodies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event

can you pay attention to" evolutionary importance" and specific the sentence
"during the dynamics of an extiction event", in the article.?

very supportive to the idea of dynamic quality , in fact.

2011/2/9 ADRIE KINTZIGER <parser666 at gmail.com>

> re, Mark.
> quote,
>
> "Based on theories of evolution one could say that Nature does
> not see such a thing by our same criteria of Morality.  This would
> imply that Nature is immoral.  However, one could convincingly argue
> that making room for new species is Moral."-End.
>
> Adrie
> As well the universe as nature(as an expansion of the universe)are
> indifferent towards the concept of Morality, morality itself, or the role
> of Morality
> human-induced, projected as we mean to say upon the univers or nature.
> Not the question or the answer itself is the most important in this
> matter,but the
> pattern of indifference, ...only this pattern, will allow -'all'- other
> patterns(all of them, resorting under the umbrella of dynamic quality) to
> happen.
> It is impossible to restrict the the patterns of the universe or nature,
> under
> the mechanisms or projections of "mankind'(the arch of morality).
> Yes, mark, the arch of morality is inherent to
> mankind(intellect,intelligence, the toplevel).Morality delivers the frame
> for intelligence to form intellect, and to expand this intellect further on.
>
> Nor nature or the universe will accept in any way to be restricted under
> the arch of moral value's.
>
> Allow me to project a simplified model.
> Simply take the bill of rights,"LILA", or the "Origin Of Species By Means
> of Natural selection",....get outside, surch for a bear's cave,a heap of
> ants or some
> apes in the zoo.
> Speak them out loud, the books about morality, reality, the bill of rights
> and try to
> observe the difference in the behaviour among the apes, the ants or the
> bear.
> You can shout all you want, they will keep on anting, eating or playing
> according to the dynamism of their instictive embedded patterns.Nothing
> else.
>
> Same goes for the universe,or nature, do the test, take some books about
> morality along with you towards the fields,the forest, the starry sky.......
> You can declare your formulations about  morality forever and ever, but
> there will be 'nothing' of difference,not one single atom will blink an eye.
> It is however very acceptable that the indifference will remain as it is.
>
> To come back on your position,..
> quote , Mark.
>
> "However, one could convincingly argue
> that making room for new species is Moral."
>
> Adrie.
> Argueing convincingly is a human(intellect/intelligence) endevour only,and
> by such
> the endstatement 'making room for new species', is restricting the
> argumentation
> under the humanly arch of morality,in stead of expanding it beyond, or make
> it transparant down the arrow of the levels.
>
>
> So , in conclusion,i don't think it is possible for nature or the universe
> to be moral or immoral.They just "are", without cause and effect, resorting
> under the pattern of dynamic quality, and this in itself is a responding to
> Quality. Every pattern supports dynamical quality.
>
>
>
>
> 2011/2/9 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com>
>
> Hi Adrie,
>> I am not how you interpreted me as stating that we have a moral
>> obligation.  We express morality as a continuity of Quality,
>> certainly, not through some  uniquely human power.  We call the
>> preservation of species a Moral activity if we see it that way.  Some
>> do not.  Based on theories of evolution one could say that Nature does
>> not see such a thing by our same criteria of Morality.  This would
>> imply that Nature is immoral.  However, one could convincingly argue
>> that making room for new species is Moral.  In the same way, short
>> lifespans and death is Moral.  There is no Truth to be had here, only
>> quality of rhetoric.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Mark
>>
>> On Tuesday, February 8, 2011, ADRIE KINTZIGER <parser666 at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Hi , Mark.
>> >
>> > your statement about us keeping and upholding the morals, and morality
>> > by , for example, preserving species from extinction kept bugging me.
>> >
>> > and it is by reason.
>> >
>> http://sharkdivers.blogspot.com/2009/10/branchinella-latzi-death-by-tourism.html
>> >
>> > I don't think it is a moral endevour to try to preserve species,we don't
>> > preserve them from extinction.
>> > We can however stretch the species lifespan when they are on the
>> treshold of
>> > dissapearing.
>> > But,! when the pool of genes becomes too small, the species will die out
>> > anyway.
>> > Its a dynamical event.
>> >
>> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geochelone_nigra_abingdoni
>> >
>> > Only to make my point,i don't believe in our role as moral guardian of
>> the
>> > animal kingdom.
>> >
>> > And exuses for the lack of editing.(no time)
>> >
>> > Adrie
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > parser
>> > 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/md/archives.html
>> >
>> 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/md/archives.html
>>
>
>
>
> --
> parser
>

-- 
parser