From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Fri Nov 28 2003 - 18:56:02 GMT
Paul:
I don't agree that "all DQ activity implies intellect," it seems to me
to be needlessly anthropomorphic to describe *all* activity in terms of
the human capacity for abstract thought.
I also think that describing evolution in terms of "betterness," as does
the MOQ, makes the terms "random" and "accident" as inappropriate and
misleading as the word "design."
DM: Hi Paul, this is where we disagree I think. I see the idea that
intellect
implies only human 'abstract thought' as anthropocentric. Nature produces
purposeful intellect in man and it is anthropocentric to think that the rest
of
nature is not full of different forms of it. I do not like the idea of
evolution by
design or the idea of purposeless random mutation and natural selection, I
think the only plausible alternative is that evolution progresses in
purposeful
manner. This is is not a final cuase notion but that each dynamic situation
is
open to a number of possibilities or possible futures. I do not think of the
future
as something distant from the present, the future is the spread of
possibilities that
make up where the present is. A male moth faced by two attractive female
moths
has two possible mating futures attracting him towards becoming actual.
The dog that works out that sitting is the future possibility that gains the
chocolate
has a form of intelligence. The 'building' of the animal/human body from the
fertilised egg
is a very clear intelligently working activity. Reality is so obviously an
inseperable
material/active/intelligent combination. This is how I think quantum theory
needs interpreting.
The wave form represents the existence in the present of an open number of
alternative
futures (i.e. not in parellel universes) the collapse of the wave function
is the converting
of the richness of the possible into the finitude of the event-present. Now
with something
like the use of langauge (in human abstarct intelligence) the opeenness and
possibilities of the future
are increased, language makes the possible richer, the quantum
indeterminability is greater
(hence human's are more free than rocks), as we know, as you learn your
capacity to control
your environment increases because the possibility of control has become a
possible option to you,
which until you had certain language skills or other skills they were not.
Does this make any sense
to you? Random and accident refers to when different electromagnetic waves
clash, so that instead
of following the patterns/possibilities offered by a single wave, there is
the extra muddle of the interaction
of the waves which due to their internal fluctuations you cannot predict how
they will interact. Solid
predictable things are brought about by the way that the combined
waves/fields dampen each other
down into static predictably well behaved patterns. But these are only
static as long as we are talking
about closed systems. Open systems means patterns banging into each other
again. Although obviously
certain stable patterns that bang into each other react predictably as in
chemistry, but non-stable
structures do not, i.e. any streams of particles.
regards
David Morey
regards
David Morey
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Turner" <paulj.turner@ntlworld.com>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Friday, November 28, 2003 3:43 PM
Subject: RE: MD Language in the MOQ
> Hi David
>
> David said:
> Do we not say 'intellectual' when conflict emerges between society and
> the individual that goes beyond mere superficial/material/power
> individual gain within the society.
>
> Paul:
> As I understand it, "intellectual" is not to be equated with
> "individual," but your point about something "beyond...power [or]
> individual gain within the society" strikes a chord. I think power and
> individual gain is static social quality.
>
> David said:
> The intellectual is holding views, unacceptable to society generally,
> for their own sake and not for personal gain, or because of a desire to
> change the society hence in terms of dynamic change. Many myths explore
> the notion of the emergence of the individual/ego and the heroic
> conflict involved in this.
>
> Paul:
> I think the heroic conflict resulting in the emergence of an individual,
> as you describe, is a static vs.Dynamic conflict rather than a social
> vs. intellectual conflict. Intellectual patterns can be common or
> individual, just as social patterns are. I think a basic definition of
> social patterns is "relationships between humans," and it is these
> relationships which define one's social identity, including your
> individuality. Intellectual patterns are also part of one's identity and
> are less static, but they are not the whole thing.
>
> David said:
> A social system/culture has a static aspect, where the individual is
> involved in dynamic change/conflict or trying to make new possibilities
> possible we are talking about possible intellectual phenomena.
>
> Paul:
> Again, I don't equate "intellect" with "individual." I think you are
> describing a static-Dynamic process although it may result in the
> creation of new social and intellectual patterns.
>
> David said:
> All depends where you want to draw a line and call something
> intellectual.
>
> Paul:
> Indeed, this is the trouble.
>
> David said:
> Takes a certain sort of intellect to improve the way you cut your flint
> axe. All DQ activity implies intellect, otherwise it is random/accident
> and has no quality.
>
> Paul:
> I don't agree that "all DQ activity implies intellect," it seems to me
> to be needlessly anthropomorphic to describe *all* activity in terms of
> the human capacity for abstract thought.
>
> I also think that describing evolution in terms of "betterness," as does
> the MOQ, makes the terms "random" and "accident" as inappropriate and
> misleading as the word "design."
>
> Cheers
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archives:
> Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> Nov '02 Onward -
http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 28 2003 - 19:03:26 GMT