Ant McWatt (ant11@liverpool.ac.uk)
Sat, 29 Aug 1998 04:50:49 +0100
On Thu, 27 Aug 1998 20:12:26 +0300 "Jonathan B. Marder"
<marder@agri.huji.ac.il> wrote:
> Hi Ant, LS
> ...
> >So, all other things being equal, if a meteor destroys 90%
> >of life on a planet then that is an example of a bad
> >change. If life on a barren planet suddenly develops then
> >that is an example of a good change.
>
>
> And if a meteor destroys some life opening the way for more
> sophisticated forms to evolve?
> What every gardener knows is that you prune to strengthen new growth.
>
> If you recall my morality <-> potential suggestion, I discussed how the
> path for maximum realisation of potential is not always a smooth ride.
> The ball rolling down a rough slope must sometimes go UP to overcome
> minor obstacles. If you take sugar and pour it onto the table, it won't
> go to maximal realisation of potential (i.e. a flat layer 1 granule
> thick). It gets trapped in static patterns of equilibrium. If you shake
> the table, the static patterns are broken, and the sugar can settle
> further. As I wrote last month:-
> >In Pirsig's terms, DQ itself was a force towards morality. My own
> >observation is that realization of potential in a system takes the
> >system to greater stability. If DQ is potential, then stability would
> be
> >its realization. "STABILITY is MORAL". On the other hand, this leads to
> >stagnation...
Hence my condition Jonathan: "all other things being equal".
However, the basic point of your e-mail that "the path for
maximum realisation of potential is not always a smooth
ride" is a good one.
Regards,
Ant.
-- homepage - http://www.moq.org/lilasquad unsubscribe/queries - mailto:lilasquad@moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:39 CEST