Hi David B. and Squad,
David is right in one point : we need one more month to discuss this.
As for the rest, well, thank you David for having painted a very nice
strawman of my position. You say that you have "read and re-read" my
posts (I won't speak for Roger here) but obviously the meat of them
hasn't gone home. You are right, I am a little angry here because you
attack my position with critics that have already been presented, but
you always fail to comment my refutations. That is why I think you
present a strawman.
I don't have the time for a longer reply (my paper in linguistics is due
for tomorrow) but be sure I'm not finished with you. See you at OK
Corral in a few days. ;)
In the mean time, try to comment my refutation of solipsist charges, and
why I think DQ must be introduced in our understanding of the levels, if
you really do want to understand what I'm saying. [first answers to Bo
and Magnus]
Your critic of intellectual/social level confusion is a good one, I
think, it could be the subject for next month. I already said to Bo that
it needed clarification, so I wholeheartedly agree. It is the weak link
in my discussion, obviously. It doesn't mean it's wrong, just that we
don't really understand the social level at all, IMO.
Just a little thing you might want to think about : when plants emerged
some hundred million years ago, the atmosphere started changing.
Dioxygen was released in enormous amounts in the air, and changed the
whole composition of Earth atmosphere. Here we have an example of a
higher level (Biology) making significant changes in a lower one
(Inorganic). Now try to superpose this kind of interaction to the one
between Intellect (my view of it) and Society. Tell me what you see.
Seeya
Denis
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Jan 17 2002 - 13:08:52 GMT