Why are paradoxes considered profound?

Quick reader ?
I merely point out that Varela is one of those "second order" guys who has dumped algorithmic analysis

...what you mean is that even algorithms are subjected to interpretation...but I believe this constrain can be sorted by adding complexity to the analysis, adding more systems to the interaction will reveal further effects and in them further potential...objective knowledge is addressed to the interaction itself and not directly at the thing but it must recognize the necessity of the transcendental object...justification is always needed.

...it is true the phenomena of the Moon would disappear if humans did not exist, but what is not true is that a certain algorithm which interacts with our senses in the way it interacts would disappear in itself...the specific interaction would be lost but not the transcendental object which we from our perspective like to call Moon...

If I am "yellow" and you are "green" when we relate we produce blue or whatever... I can´t see the green behind the blue as you can´t see the yellow...we both see the function...you can apply the same idea to nature without Bio observers, obviously with different results/effects...the trait is Universal, that´s what functions do ! No matter what all forms of relation are valid and objective in themselves...

...just to finish my speculative hypothesis, the derailing goes long and its not my intention to keep at it, I must ad one further intuition that I hope the following metaphor can illustrate :

...if when looking at a square I did saw a triangle and when looking at a triangle I saw a square, being the world exclusively framed in triangles and squares I still would know everything there is to know about such world...Foundation even if in/through transcendental objects is precisely about that !

...all things considered weighting error for error realists "sin" is far less important then yours...they did not lost track of the essential while you engaged in "magic" explaining...

No. I think you need to take your time and read that article with respect to paradigmatic developments in cognitive science, without trying to bend it to your personal "theory of everything".

You in turn need to explain allot concerning the infinite divorce you promote in between the organic and the inorganic...not to mention how you so easily drop mechanics, even quantum physics is mechanic...what kind of world is that ? I can´t honestly figure how you buy it...

When does Fresco ever promote a divorce between anything?

I don't think he'd agree that quantum physics IS mechanic either.

The guiding issue is "what constitutes order". As I see it, "life" is the antithesis/complement/ designator of "entropy", and that separation, is a sufficient answer to your question.

Divorce is mitigated by the word "complement"
(Think yin-yang)

...you cannot drop mechanics in there if you want genuine interaction, no matter how complex or twisted...they cannot be totally transcendent to each other, you still need a FUNCTIONAL connection...convince me I am wrong !

Functionality is in the eye of the beholder, and that eye is a human eye.

...from that sentence on you can clearly see why your position resists analysis and can be connoted as magic thinking Fresco...from that crossing bridge on debate is useless, you have entered an absolute of your own who cannot be scrutinized with any instrument of reason any more...any way if you don´t believe analysis can do its job I suggest you don´t use analysis to criticize your opponents arguments, its a contradiction in terms, which by your own token renders your argument innocuous...

Get back to me if you read the article.
I am interested in ice skating, but you are interested in how we tie the boot laces.

...you see I don´t have a choice I must be interested on such or I will not be playing an honest game in my own eyes...

Fil, do you believe that evil exists? Or good?

No I don´t believe in evil or good as they are normally described by moral or common sense...
I believe there are "disturbed" behaviours either one way or another...normally justified by chemical unbalances, psychological trauma, or cultural pressure regarding group strategies of adaptation...

Do you agree that good/evil and good/bad are subjective judgments?

I agree there is a difference in between what people believe to be the case regarding many things, good/evil being one, and what is in fact the case, which requires a more analytical approach...
It all ends up being a matter of having good reasons to believe in a particular something...there are things which serve as better justification then others, and even those are not necessarily final...just remember the Flying Spaghetti Monster mockery and you will get what I mean...
...the problem of good and evil as I previously posted, requires a more then commonsensical approach to it...I don´t see it as a mere problem of subjective beliefs, but more of a emotional interference problem for having certain beliefs, and thus ends up being a problem of subjective ignorance...there are certain convenient cognitive short cut interpretations for moral dilemmas who fulfil a good relation of low energy/mental effort and high emotional balance...even interpreting mistakes have a roll in our lifes and require good justification...certain mistakes on interpretation are highly useful when they require a low input of effort to achieve a sufficiently functional moral use...good and evil are functional conveniences that optimize the output productivity of a society as a whole, and thus its not surprising that such powerful instruments of control can hardly be questioned...

How about a straight answer for once?

Do you agree that good/evil and good/bad are subjective judgments?

It's a yes or no question.

Just to illustrate what I mean with "subjective judgment": The 9.11 even of crashing planes into the world trade center is seen by most people of the western world as evil/bad acts, and consequently, those responsible are evil/bad people.
But in some muslim countries these people are considered martyrs, heroes of a war, and their actions are considered good.
So, the quality of their actions is judged on the background of what they mean to whoever makes the judgment.

Do you agree that this is the case?