Ron: Krimel, you have some legitimate arguments that really need to be addressed On a fundamental level for MoQ to have any cohesive meaning. I'm Right with you on the anthropic debate, if we are going to slam Ham, In all fairness We better slam Pirsig too. Lets point out Roberts Analytical SOM assumptions. [Krimel] Pretty much all of Chapter 11 is just a tragic mistake. If taken as a kind of trade off of precision to achieve clarity is not overtly offensive but when people like Platt take it as an authoritative guide to evolutionary theory it is down right corrosive.
Without repeating details I have been long winded about in the past here are some of the low lights: [Pirsig] Either life is with physical nature or it's against it. If it's with nature there's nothing to survive. If it's against physical nature then there must be something apart from the physical and chemical forces of nature that is motivating it to be against physical nature. Ron: Nothing like excluded middles to simplify a complex system of relations. [Pirsig] If life is to be explained on the basis of physical laws, then the overwhelming evidence that life deliberately works around these laws cannot be ignored. The reason atoms become chemistry professors has got to be that something in nature does not like laws of chemical equilibrium or the law of gravity or the laws of thermodynamics or any other law that restricts the molecules' freedom. They only go along with laws of any kind because they have to, preferring an existence that does not follow any laws whatsoever. Ron: Anthropomorphism away! Look out! Atoms with punk haircuts and leather jackets.. [Krimel] This is part of a whole section where he is trying to resurrect teleology. He mentions Teilhard de Chardin even. It is a beautiful example of the kind of flawed reasoning that results from personification and anthropomorphism. Dennett argues that the intentional stance can help us achieve clarity. Here Pirsig shows us how it destroys precision. [Pirsig] 'Survival of the fittest' is meaningful only when 'fittest' is equated with 'best,' which is to say, 'Quality.' Ron: I just cringe at this, what the hell is he really saying? Nothing at all Really, an empty statement which he confirms. [Pirsig continues]: And the Darwinians don't mean just any old quality, they mean undefined Quality! As Mayr's article makes clear, they are absolutely certain there is no way to define what that 'fittest' is. Good! The 'undefined fittest" they are defending is identical to Dynamic Quality. Natural selection is Dynamic Quality at work. There is no quarrel whatsoever between the Metaphysics of Quality and the Darwinian Theory of Evolution. Neither is there a quarrel between the Metaphysics of Quality and the 'teleological' theories which insist that life has some purpose. What the Metaphysics of Quality has done is unite these opposed doctrines within a larger metaphysical structure that accommodates both of them without contradiction. [Krimel] He is quite correct that the MoQ in many ways restates Darwin. It can help provide some clarity on the role of DQ in creating and developing static patterns in Nature. But we can only resurrect teleology by ignoring the fact that DQ is Shiva, creator and destroyer. What survives in evolution is not necessarily the 'fittest' but what is not annihilated. Big rocks falling out of the sky, glaciers, climate change, volcanoes and disease are all agents of DQ. His insistence that DQ is a driving force towards "betterness" salvages teleology at the expense of the power and precision of the ideas he uses. Ron: Right-o Krimel, it confuses the big message that evolution is now. It is immediate experience. Evolution is happening. Evolution is the value process,Evolution is Quality/reality. His insistence that DQ is a driving force towards "betterness" also gives the ill-fated illusion of transposing social concepts of betterness on to universal absolutes. A scary proposition. 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/
