On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 1:02 PM, Krimel <[email protected]> wrote: >> [Krimel] >> Evolution doesn't drive anything. It is a description of how patterns >> adapt in response to change, flux, uncertainty; in other words dynamic >> quality. Evolution is a reflexive process where the output of one cycle >> becomes the input for the next. > > Dan: > Dynamic Quality isn't change and uncertainty. Evolution is the process > of natural selection. > > [Krimel] > I snipped the Pirsig quotes because I have discussed them at length many > times. In short, Pirsig's understanding of evolution is shamefully wrong. > This clearly is not his area of expertise and his thinking on the matter was > way off target even considering the time during which he was writing. Citing > Pirsig as an "expert" on evolution is just embarrassing.
Dan: That's a bit hilarious considering we're members of a discussion group centered around his writings. I cite Robert Pirsig as an expert on the MOQ, not evolution. I know, I know, you're much more intelligent. Still waiting for that book of yours though.... > > But take the sketch you outline about. Natural selection does not mean that > Mother Nature is gussied up in a nice apron picking and choosing which of > her offspring deserve to make up the next generation. Natural selection is > purely and simply a matter of chance. It is static patterns congealing out > of dynamic and chaotic interactions. If only Pirsig had understood this. Dan: So now we should call dynamic quality chaos? Damn that Pirsig. What's wrong with him? > > But just to take a small example from your Pirsig quotes: > > "Dynamic Quality is not structured and yet it is not chaotic." > > This was "common sense" when Pirsig wrote Lila but any thinking adult today > should be able to see that it is false. For one thing many things that are > structured are chaotic. The stock market is highly structured and yet it is > unpredictable and chaotic on a day to day basis. Structures and patterns are > subsets of chaos they are not different from or other than chaos. Static and > dynamic are relative terms that describe a continuum of chaotic behavior. > That really is the central point of the MoQ. At least an MoQ that actually > has a contribution to make. Dan: In the MOQ, Dynamic and static are not relative terms. I think that is the central point of misunderstanding. > > [Pirsig] > "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." > (LILA) > > Dan: > Undefined fittest is identical to Dynamic Quality. Not change, not > uncertainty, not chaos, not any sort of concept at all. Do you see? > > [Krimel] > OK, you suckered me into another of Pirsig's silly quotes from Chapter 11. I > totally agree that Natural selection is DQ at work. In fact I would say that > both the MoQ and evolutionary theory are about how static forms come to > exist and persist under chaotic conditions. If only Pirsig had had the good > sense to stop there. Dan: Well shucks, I'll take what I can get. > > [Dan] > Thanks Krimel, and good to have you back, > > [Krimel] > Thanks Dan, but relax I won't be here long. > Me either. Dan 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/
