Hey Platt, I suppose we have different perspectives on life and death. I'll leave it at that. I am familiar with Pirsig's "why" question concerning evolution, and I am merely taking his stance prior to his overriding use of "best". Survival implies longevity in the face of pressure to the opposite. Such as the survival of a species; the pressure is the environment. If one looks at it from the other side, the environment is dictating the tools required for survival. Fins in water, fur in cold weather, intelligence in predators. The environment is dictating the turns which evolution takes in order to survive. So I'll ask again: What environment is creating the "best". What are the pressures which are causing the evolution of Quality?
If such pressures exist, this would put Quality within a larger system (let's call it Nature). By my interpretation, Quality itself is the larger system. As such, it cannot cause itself to evolve. We could say that the pressures of Quality bring out the best. If this is true, Quality could be considered to be a negative pressure. If Quality is considered to be a positive pressure for bringing out the best, then survival is not the best term, a better term would be Nurtured Growth. This emphasis on survival is simply a glass half-empty way of looking at it. We are not given the gift of survival, we are given the gift of life. Finally, if Quality is simply accepted as the way things are going, then we need to drop any scientific claims. For what it's worth, Mark On Feb 19, 2010, at 7:17:15 AM, "Platt Holden" <[email protected]> wrote: Hey Mark, See comments below. On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 8:22 PM, markhsmit <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Platt, > > What I meant, was that survival is a perception of our > reality with no ground, that is no basis. Survival of the > best is a tautology, because the best survive, nothing more > than that. Pirsig disagrees with you. "But 'survival of the fittest' is one of those catch phrases like 'mutants' and 'misfits' that sounds best when you ask precisely what it means. Fittest for what? Fittest for survival? That reduces to 'survival of the survivors' which doesn't say anything. "Survival of the fittest' is meaningful only when 'fittest' is equated with 'best' which is to say 'Quality.' "(Lila, 11) As for "survival having no basis" I ask, "Why not?" If life and death isn't a "basis" I don't know what is. I have had this discussion with many in terms of > evolution, especially Krimel who was like a dog with lock-jaw. > (No offense Krimel, you are a tough cookie). > Obviously either I am not good at explaining, or the notion of > survival and evolution is so engrained that it cannot be > dispelled. And, no, I am not talking creation, or intelligent > design, or any other alternative. > > The point is, that survival does not say anything, except perhaps > through hindsight, and then it is meaningless. If one drops the > whole notion of survival, it is possible to grasp existence in > many other ways. If one were to say that Value were evolving, > this would have to be in the context of outside pressures, in the > same way a species is said to evolve due to the environment. > What is this outside pressure that makes Quality evolve? > > How about the desire of life to live, to survive? Seems to me life and living is better (higher Quality) than the alternative. > A better term may be development or growth. Growth does not > depend on survival. We are not surviving when we grow, we > are growing. The appearance and disappearance of the "ten > thousand things" is not due to survival. Evolution and survival > is used to express linear development. I see no signs of such > linear development, if anything it is circular. Evolution implies an ever > increasing something, with purpose. I believe it is highly > misleading and of very low value. According to the MOQ, evolution is an "ever increasing something" called Quality, or "betterment." It brings Bo to believe that > the human mind is somehow becoming something that is > better. Better than what? > Better than it's present S/O understanding of reality. > > Anyway, sorry for the rant, I know I am in a minority here Ranting is good The Declaration of Independence is one big rant against oppressive big government. . Regards, Platt > > On Feb 18, 2010, at 5:02:02 AM, [email protected] wrote: > Hey Mark, > > Don't know what you mean by "no ground." To me life and death are > grounded in reality, and "survival of the best" is the essential catalyst > of > MOQ value evolution. Am I missing something? > > Best, > Platt > > > On 17 Feb 2010 at 19:00, markhsmit wrote: > > > Hi Platt, > > Yes, I agree, the only thing I would remove is the word > > "survival". I think that term is misleading. It really has > > no ground. > > cheers, > > Mark > > > > On Feb 17, 2010, at 7:25:47 AM, [email protected] wrote: > > Hi Mark, Ron: > > > > I agree with your insights about the nature of belief. I would only add > > that another way to look at the positive emotions of contentment, > > satisfaction, assuagement, and gratification and the negatives of > > uncomfortable and tormented is the need to remove doubt so one can > > act to live. > > > > In other words, perhaps your insights can be summed up as the > > "survival imperative to remove doubt." Besides affording another > > perspective on beliefs, it emphasizes the absolute necessity of belief > to > > guide one's actions. > > > > Thanks for your contributions to our understanding of values, religious > > and otherwise. > > > > Best, > > Platt > > > > > > 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/
