Hi DMB, all,
On Jul 7, 2009, at 1:45 PM, david buchanan wrote:
dmb said:
Better and worse are just two sides of the same coin. It's DQ that
gets you off the hot stove. One could say it was worse on the stove
or one could say it was better off the stove. Either way, it means
the same thing. Likewise, survival of the best and extinction of
the worst both operate on exactly the same principle.
Matt replied:
While it is certainly true that better and worse are two sides of
the same coin, I find it difficult to think one is using a single,
unified sense of the term denoted by "DQ" if one wants to say both
1) "DQ is reality and therefore both betterness and worseness" and
2) "DQ is the best." To say that all Pirsig was saying about
evolution was that the best survive and the worst die, it seems to
me, is to fall into the same meaninglessness Pirsig accused
Dawinianian tautologists who say survivors survive.
dmb says:
Well, first of all, you might want to separate the empirical claims
from the historical, evolutionary claims. The sense of better and
worse is something that occurs in the moment of experience while
the survivors are the "best" products of that primary sense of
value. In other words, this primary sense of value works to guide
evolution while the best state is the goal toward which we are guided.
Steve:
I think this comment is an important key to understanding the MOQ.
I've thought for a while that there are two different perspectives
that have to be kept in mind and kept distinct, and I'm glad that DMB
has given them useful distinguishing labels: empirical and historical.
Best,
Steve
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/
