Magnus Berg (qmgb@bull.se)
Tue, 7 Oct 1997 16:47:43 +0100
Maggie wrote:
>
> Can I use "building blocks" instead of "organic patterns"? Does it mean the same thing?
Yes, but you can on the other hand use "building blocks" for all
levels so I think it's too general.
> I'm not sure what you mean when you say organic patterns, but it
> looks to me like you're referring to the similar kinds of
> interactions between the levels, where the lower levels provide the
> building blocks, to be rearranged at the whim of the higher.
> When I look at the levels, it seems to me that there are
> similarities in the shape of the types of change, the types of
> reproduction and reconstruction in all the levels, despite the fact
> that the "substance" of the patterns of each level seems very
> different. To me, this is the importance of the different levels.
I don't understand this fix everybody seems to have about reproduction. Of course every level must have a way to reproduce
themselves, otherwise the first pattern of every level would
eventually "die" and become the last. The alternative seems to
be what the inorganic level accomplished, it just manifested itself
all at once at the big bang and don't need reproduction.
But the main purpose of reproduction is to be able to change!
And that's *not* what static patterns is about, they want to
stay the same and latch. All reproduction is DQ!
> biological value is life, (Pirsig's example of life is escape
> from gravity)
Pirsig also included aeroplanes and moon trips in this escape
from gravity, and I think we all agree that intellect is required
for that. So, according to Pirsig, life may include intellect.
-- post message - mailto:skwok@spark.net.hk unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:04 CEST