Pirsig:
"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?
Ron:
I thought it explains both without contradiction.
Note Pirsigs assertions:
"Natural selection is Dynamic Quality at work"
and
""Survival of the fittest" is meaningful only when "fittest" is equated
with "best," which is to say, "Quality."
If natural selection is Quality it is what it does, which is exercise
dynamic selection, a.k.a exercise free will.
To be or not to be...
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
