Krimel, Wow! Did you just wake up from a bad nap?
Marsha At 02:44 PM 11/21/2007, you wrote: >Moqers, > > > >In a recent post I got sneered at as a reductionist by dmb. I think his >point is well taken and illustrates something fundamental. By rejecting >reductionism dmb hopes to hold the door open for some sort of top down >organization system. He can correct me if I am wrong here but this >definitely seems to be on tactic taken by one of his heroes Ken Wilbur. Ham >has the same tendency with his faith in a first cause. Platt too, with his >belief in a disembodied consciousness. gav does the same kind of thing with >his seemingly drug induced visions of oneness everywhere. Dan also has this >kind of view of oneness that can be tapped into through meditative >discipline, Scott Roberts used to say the same kind of thing claiming that >our brains are not producers of consciousness but receivers of it. > > > >According to this kind of view we see the panoply of nature spread before us >as a kind of evaporation of this higher power spreading out in the material >world. This results in a view of the MoQ that has Quality as some kind of >perfection or source that breaks apart to yield the world of appearances. > > > >To any whose views I have miscast, I will happily back off but if this is a >correct interpretation of the points of view expressed then I do indeed see >my position and that of the MoQ as being against it. Taken at face value the >levels show a bottom up progression from inorganic to intellect. It does not >flow in the other direction. If seen in the proper light the value of the >MoQ is its synthesis of Taoism with Darwin. I suppose this is what makes the >evolution chapter in Lila such a disappointment. Pirsig points at the moon >without seeing the moon. He does the same thing in his discussion of random >access when he concluded that a metaphysics of quality would really be a >metaphysics of randomness. He sees. He points. He turns away. > > > >I think the big problem I have in these discussions is that when I look >where Pirsig points I see the connection. I recognize the pattern and I >mistakenly assume that the pattern is clear to all who look. The levels that >Pirsig offers do follow a clear evolutionary trajectory. At each 'level' the >power of coincidence and pragmatism interact. Change (DQ) is always moving >into the future and forms (SQ) are left in the wake. Which forms are >selected depend on the past history and the present raw materials. The >factors that influence evolution are well known and can be applied at all >'levels' regardless of how those levels are conceived. But is entirely a >bottom up process. Higher functions emerge only from stability at the lower >levels. Certainly there is interaction and higher levels can and do impact >lower levels, a point taken up by Ian and occasionally Arlo. But no higher >level pattern can materially disrupt the lower level patterns it depends >upon without drastic consequences. > > > >If we insist on using the dismal concept of 'betterness' then it is >'betterness' that has been programmed into us by these very processes. We >perceive this or that as better because it enhances our potential to >reproduce. It limits the extent to which our higher level patterns are >likely to disrupt the essential lower level patterns that we perceive as the >true, the good and the beautiful. The perception of Value is in fact >programmed into us at a genetic level. So yes, it is 'preintellectual'. > > > >I understand the reluctance to adopt this kind of view. It places too much >emphasis and chance. It results is a fairly deterministic view. It leaves us >adrift in a sea of coincidence without a Savior, without a purpose, without >the divine. A host of MoQers turn away from this conception in fear and >disgust. I would liken this one of Freud's ego defense mechanisms; denial. >Ham calls it nihilism and rails against existentialism with its claim that >existence precedes essence and that man must look inward to define his own >purpose. Platt rejects the concept that anything as exquisitely beautiful >and complex as this world we live in could arise from chance. I have >described these positions and others like them as wishful thinking so often, >I am reluctant to do it again but there it is. > > > >I think the moon Pirsig is pointing at is a true metaphysics of randomness. >When you see evolution as the study of how random process interact to create >the stabile patterns we see all around us, the connection becomes clear and >the Value of the MoQ obvious. But Pirsig is not alone in pointing in the >direction and perhaps others have seen the way more clearly. > > > >I have been dropping William James quotes recently to show how integral to >James' thinking Darwin was. James was a leading spokesperson for the >psychological school of Functionalism. This school was directly opposed to >the structuralist school that believed that by looking inward one could >identify structural units of mental processes. James said rather, that >consciousness, in fact any behavior, must serve an evolutionary function. It >must contribute to the reproductive success of those who manifest it. >Neither functionalism nor structuralism have proponents today. >Structuralism, with it reliance on a rather mystical methodology much like >one frequently advocated by dmb, died long ago. But functionalism was >absorbed and retained. Today it is most clearly seen in Evolutionary >Psychology which is in many ways a direct descendant of James. > > > >The bottom line here? > > > >It's turtles all the way up! > > > >Krimel > >Moq_Discuss mailing list >Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. >http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org >Archives: >http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ >http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
