On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 3:01 PM, david buchanan <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dan said: > Natural selection pertains to the biological level. There is no choice > involved. The fittest survive to pass on those survival traits while the less > fit hit an evolutionary dead end. At the biological level, the environment > seems to determine the fittest. > > dmb says: > Well, there is that section in chapter 11 of Lila where Pirsig describes the > role of "spur of the moment decisions" that direct the progress of evolution > as "in fact, Dynamic Quality itself. DQ, the source of all things, the > pre-intellectual cutting edge of reality, always appears as 'spur of the > moment.' Where else could it appear?" (142) > > These decisions are not made deliberately in the human sense, of course, but > are choices made within whatever range of possible action is available to the > evolving species in question. I mean, a rat will get off the hot stove too. > Hopefully.
Dan: Perhaps you are right. I'd like to examine this more closely so I re-read chapter 11. I like this quote: "Lila is composed of static patterns of value and these patterns are evolving toward a Dynamic Quality. That's the theory, anyway. She's on her way somewhere, just like everybody else. And you can't say where that somewhere is." [LILA Chapter 11] Dan comments: To paraphrase: The universe is evolving towards Dynamic Quality. It is on its way somewhere but we cannot say where that somewhere is. How can choices be made when there is no way of knowing where evolution is taking us? Let's look at more quotes: "...in the Metaphysics of Quality, what is evolving isn't patterns of atoms. What's evolving is static patterns of value, and while that doesn't change the data of evolution it completely up-ends the interpretation that can be given to evolution." [LILA Chapter 11] "Evolution is recklessly opportunistic: it favors any variation that provides a competitive advantage over other members of an organism's own population or over individuals of different species. For billions of years this process has automatically fueled what we call evolutionary progress. No program controlled or directed this progression. It was the result of spur of the moment decisions of natural selection." [Ernst Mayr, quoted by Robert Pirsig, LILA, Chapter 11] "Survival of the fittest" is meaningful only when "fittest" is equated with "best," which is to say, "Quality." And the Darwinians don't mean just any old quality, they mean undefined Quality! As Mayr's article makes clear, they are absolutely certain there is no way to define what that "fittest" is. "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 Chapter 11] Dan comments; Note that Mayr states that "no program controlled or directed this progression." To me, this indicates that no free will was involved. If the best is equated with Dynamic Quality, then it stands to reason that that is the only choice involved, which is to say there is no choice. Thoughts? 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/md/archives.html
