[Krimel] Would you agree that it is unfortunate that the MOQ excludes itself from mainstream evolutionary thinking as a result of Pirsig's lack of contact with say, Gould, Wilson or Dawkins?
Ant McWatt commented: No, Id say its unfortunate that mainstream evolutionary thinking has excluded itself from taking on board the MOQ (though, to be fair, I think Dawkins followed this Discussion group for a while in the mid-2000s)! If the (metaphysical) basics that you rely on are problematic in the first place then the value of your empirical work is going to be reduced accordingly. LILA would have been a more interesting read if it had included reference to thinkers such as Gould, Wilson and Dawkins but possibly that would have taken out the fun for making these comparisons for yourself. [Krimel] My question was prompted by a quote you posted earlier that included this: "A century and a half after the publication of Origin of Species, evolutionary thinking has expanded beyond the field of biology to include virtually all human-related subjectsanthropology, archeology, psychology, economics, religion, morality, politics, culture, and art. And yet you claim all those disciplines would be better off embracing teleology and an account the thermodynamics that Pirsig shares with the Institute for Creation Research. Krimel/Case then asked: Doesn't his teleological view and his insistence on a "direction" for evolution cripple progress on the MOQ? Ant McWatt commented: By progress, I take it that you mean academic acceptance in the Anglo-American tradition? If so, Id tend to agree with you though I think thats more down to the blinkered attitudes of these academics who cant see beyond the creationist/materialist options and, in addition, are usually clueless about Zen (and/or Dynamic Quality). [Krimel] So you agree with Platt that academia is following blind dogma in rejecting teleology and the doctrines of the Institute for Creation Research? [Ant] Possibly, it comes down to how much weight that you put on the eventual appearance of civilization, the Arts and Sciences in this universe. [Krimel} Are you still waiting? I suspect you are not alone. [Ant] Explain those just using the laws of physics! [Krimel] I suppose you could if you wanted to but who would want to do that? It sounds time consuming. [Ant] Personally, I do think they indicate a general progressive direction; a creative impulse if you like but, critically for the MOQ, one that does not require a pre-determined static plan and/or creator. [Krimel] But a "general progressive direction" does not suggest a "creative impulse" any more that a run of 500 billions heads alters that fact that, on the next toss, the odds are 50/50. Even a general claim that the future will be "better suggests that it is somehow "pre-determined" to be "better". How much "better"? "Better" for whom? Ant McWatt comments: Mistakes?!!! Theres mistakes by Pirsig in the Baggini interview?!!! My guess is that youre thinking of Pirsigs comments in LILA concerning the Second Law of Thermodynamics but, if not, you better be more specific. [Krimel] Mercifully, Baggini did not push Pirsig on that line of thinking. But feel free to comment on Pirsig's befuddled response in this exchange during an interview conducted via e-mail. Obviously either Baggini was gracious enough not to ask a follow-up question or he was not permitted to. Pirsig's response just reinforces Baggini's need to ask the question in the first place. BAGGINI: One final question about aspects of the MOQ that might help explain academic resistance to it. LILA has a remarkably wide scope and as a result it often deals with, dismisses or solves ideas rather brusquely. For example, at one point you say [The theory of evolution] goes into many volumes about how the fittest survive but never once goes into the question of why. (p144) Most biologists would see that as blatantly untrue, and that furthermore, if you think the question of why the fittest survive hasn't been answered by the theory of evolution, you just haven't understood it. Now it may well be that you have responses to this and can explain why it is you think the question of why the fittest survive hasn't really been addressed. But if you present your thesis in this telescopic, sweeping way, surely you can't complain if informed critics dismiss you. You can't expect them to take it on trust that behind these assertions are more careful, fuller arguments that justify the claims. PIRSIG: That line was an integral part of an entire chapter on the subject and thus cannot be called telescopic. I would answer that biologists who think my question doesn't understand the theory of evolution are biologists who do not understand the difference between how and why. The answers they give for why are usually competitive advantage or survival of the fittest. But if you look closely you will see that these are not scientific terms. Fittest is a subjective term. It exists only in the mind of a scientific observer. It isn't out there in the nature he observes. The same is true of advantage. Ask a biologist who thinks my question doesn't understand the theory of evolution, to define in exact scientific terms the meaning of these evaluative words. If he takes time to do so I predict he will give up or he will come up with nonsense or he will find himself drifting eventually toward the solutions arrived at by the Metaphysics of Quality. 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/
