On 2/28/10 at 5:27 PM, Joseph Maurer wrote:
Evolution is the 10,000 lb Tiger sitting in the room of OQ Discuss. Ham opts for Essence. Negation is enough, is the best criterion for change. Although positive evolution is more satisfying.
There's more than one 10,000-lb tiger in the MD room. But since Joe has elected to focus on Evolution, for the present I'll wrestle with that one.
Negation as used in metaphysics has nothing to do with polarity in the electo-mechanical sense and, unless Joe is talking about entropy as the dissolution of energy and matter in the universe, I don't know what "negative evolution" is supposed to mean. Evolution is a term generally used by biologists to describe the continuously unfolding process of nature and its species. It's also sometimes loosely applied to the historical development of human society.
Evolution, History, and Process all refer to changes or transitions perceived as moving the relational world in a "positive" direction. They are all time-dependent phenomena involving intellectual conception. Cyclic events, like the phases of the moon or birth and death, are not regarded as evolutionary, nor is the growth or atrophy of an organism which is attributed to cause-and-effect. Because man is the measure of value, to borrow from Pirsig's analogy, a change that has no "positive value" tends to be ignored by the intellect.
Change and process are dynamic events that imply movement in contrast to staticity. That's where "relation" comes in. The appearance of change requires constancy in the order of things. If we didn't have a static reference -- the ground on which we stand, for example -- we would not perceive change. Existence is a spatio-temporal system in which some things move or change relative to others. So, in addition to an observer, there must be the appearance of a pluralistic universe in order to experience change of a directional kind.
Now we can address the "negation" Joe is concerned about. Dynamic and static are contrary states, just as monism and multiplicity are contrary systems. In order for there to be contrariety there must be difference. I maintain that the appearance of difference and contrariety is a negational phenomenon. The individual self is essentially a non-entity (negate) which by sensing Value experientially differentiates it into the multiplistic world by its own nothingness, that is, by negating the value of otherness. This is really a "secondary negation", however, because nothingness is what divides primary Sensibility from essential Value. From this negation comes the precept of self/other, time/space, one/many, before/after, here/there, static/dynamic, cause/effect, good/bad, and all the other contrarieties that comprise our experiential existence.
This is the essentialist hypothesis on which my ontology is based. How this compares with Pirsig's ontology may possibly be understood by reading Joe's analysis below. (I claim no responsibility for his assertion that "an idea can be turned negative" or "a simple negation seems to be the acceptable explanation".)
Essentially speaking, Ham _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Others opt for 4 levels in evolution following Pirsig's ontology in naming 4 levels inorganic, organic, social, intellectual. But Pirsig quibbles a bit and says that at the organic level the first form of reproduction is the individual cell splitting and then there were two. Then he acknowledges that the reproduction we are used to where the sperm fertilizes the egg cell and the being develops to a mature fetus in a womb and is born becoming another individual is a DQ breakthrough. I am assuming he uses DQ in the sense of a new level. Emotions are left out of the metaphysical paradigm of evolution. Yet Nicoll points out that the positive product of an intellect, an idea, can be turned negative by an emotional input. So much for ignoring emotions! Pirsig is accepted as a hero. The activities of heroes are so special and require such careful documentation that a normal question would be: How do they do that. Where did that come from? Simplest answer an awareness in a further evolution to a higher Emotional level and a higher Intellectual level in consciousness only. At least the two new levels are an explanation of why a few individuals in history are so important in their influence over our behavior. Although many times a simple negation seems to be the acceptable explanation until history (time), discussion, and changes in circumstances prove otherwise. I do not view time as a metaphysical principle like in Time/Space. J
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/md/archives.html
