From: Valuemetaphysics@aol.com
Date: Thu Mar 18 2004 - 20:48:31 GMT
Hi Platt,
You have called for more explanation, which i am happy to attempt.
Hi Mark,
Thanks for the clarifications. As to point 1. arguments about the causes
of global warming are very much related to your question. The answer is
still up in the air. :-)
Mark 18-03-04: The question i asked was how we make a distinction? If the
same question is asked regarding the nature of a skin growth, * and we adopt a,
'The answer is still up in the air' approach instead of taking invasive action,
then the consequences may be problematic.
* i.e. benign or cancerous.
> 2. Radioactive patterns in the food chain.
> Unlike the current debate over Global temperature, Radioactivity can be
> easily distinguished from that generated by Human activity and that
> generated by Geophysical processes. While it may be argued that
> Radioactivity is of minimal concern, (those experiencing raised exposure
> would no doubt disagree with this, as may be the case with people living on
> the coast of the Irish sea for example)? Ozone depletion may be far more
> serious?
>
> The context within which these examples were introduced was that of
> Environmental impact due to prolonged Human activity, and the danger such
> activities may pose for future generations of Humans.
Again, no complete agreement among scientists about such dangers. The jury
is still out.
Mark 18-03-04: Scientists understand well the dangers of Radioactivity - it
is lethal in small exposure, and many Civil Nuclear reactors have leaked large
amounts of Radioactive material into the environment. (A circumstance which is
very often concealed until well after the fact.) Also, Ozone depletion has
been extensively mapped and warnings issued regarding the increase of certain
skin cancers in effected areas. Both these problems are the direct result of the
jury being out until it was too late to late?
> 3. Planetary biological diversity. (PBD)
> Prolonged Human activity has had a significant impact upon PBD. This is
> beyond question. What is PBD? PBD is the extent to which DNA has evolved
> life forms - Organic patterns of value. Human activity is reducing PBD by
> illuminating them at an increasing rate.
>
> The context within which this example was introduced was that of
> Environmental impact due to prolonged Human activity. But is this a problem
> for future generations of Humans? I feel this is an exceptionally
> interesting question when examined in MoQ terms, and leads directly on to
> the following considerations:
I question the value of biological diversity due to most of it being wiped
out at least once, resulting in the rise of humanity along with the social
and intellectual levels, of which I'm very happy about. :-)
Mark 18-03-04: This is a little flippant? If prolonged Human activity results
in the next wipe out, then we may be wiped out along with it. That's the
point.
A related point, and the one you may be forgiven for being flippant about, is
the value of biodiversity. The question of diversity is related to Dynamic
ability to respond, evolve and survive. In this regard diversity has high value.
> 4 and 5. A coherent relationship to DQ. Coherent state of the static
> repertoire.
> a. A coherent relationship with DQ is a description of an aesthetic sense
> of beauty, in which static patterns of Quality maintain or reach a high
> Quality relationship with Dynamic Quality.
This I still have trouble understanding. Can it be explained in 10 words
or less, like "Dynamic Quality is a response to beauty." ? ?
Mark 18-03-04: Beauty is a coherent patterned relationship with Dynamic
Quality. (9 words).
b. The static repertoire is
> simply the sum total of all static patterns of Quality. In the case of
> Organic patterns, this is the biosphere. So, Coherent state of the static
> repertoire is, in the case of Organic patterns, a description of the beauty
> of the biosphere.
Beauty for the biosphere is a lot different from beauty for us. It's the
level of tooth and claw, kill or be killed. Beauty for this level consists
of the four F's: fighting, fleeing, feeding, and f---ing. "Beauty" we
ascribe to this level, such as we see in roses, is anthropocentric.
Mark 18-03-04: The beauty, (a coherent patterned relationship with Dynamic
Quality) of the biosphere is a cousin of all other beauty, (coherent patterned
relationship with Dynamic Quality) i feel. And let us not forget that we are
included in the biosphere, and not standing aloof like a robot? It is natural
for us to wonder at the beauty of a forest, a river and mountains; it is natural
for us to delight in the fearful symmetry of the Tyger?
> Before Humans evolved to the stage when they could manipulate their
> environment, the Earths' biosphere - the repertoire of static Organic
> patterns of Quality evolving in the event stream - had reached a beautiful
> or coherent state.
See comment above.
Mark 18-03-04: Well, my working definition of beauty as a coherent patterned
relationship with Dynamic Quality was developed in The edge of chaos, which i
believe you have read? In diagrammatic form it looks like this:
Event stream (DQ as source - SODV) --------> Coherence (beauty) <--------
Evolution. (DQ as goal - Lila.)
The higher the coherence the greater the beauty. (Mystical reality may be
described as very exceptional coherence.)
I feel we may fully describe life in this way because
> the evolution of life is moral process according to the MoQ. I would argue
> that the beauty of the static repertoire, (and this goes for all levels) is
> in its diversity, because diversity resonates more vigorously with DQ than
> does a limited repertoire. One may wish to consider a limited gene pool as
> an example? The more diverse the gene pool of any species, the more able it
> is to respond to change?
See above about the time when most of the bio-level was wiped out.
Mark 18-03-04: I have tried to address this, but note: Science does not
prescribe value to biodiversity. However, the MoQ does indicate the value of
diversity as ability to respond Dynamically. You conveniently bypass this issue.
Shame! Shame! ;-)
> 7. Geophysical catastrophe.
> An Earthquake, Volcanic activity, Super Volcanic activity, Ice age, Meteor
> impacts.
>
> The context within which these examples were introduced was that of
> Environmental impact due to natural processes. If prolonged Human activity
> has the potential to disrupt the biosphere to a similar extent to that of
> natural processes, then the matter must be examined carefully. Science
> cannot defend PBD on aesthetic grounds. The MoQ can, and does i would
> argue.
I doubt if human activity, no matter how prolonged, will ever impact the
environment more than an errant meteor of some size hitting Los Angeles or
London.
Mark 18-03-04: It may not have to? The problem may be bad enough at any rate.
> Hope this clarifies my approach?
Thanks for taking the time and trouble to elucidate your views.
Best regards,
Platt
Mark 18-03-04: Happy to try.
All the best,
Mark
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 : Thu Mar 18 2004 - 22:51:47 GMT