Hi All. I seems as if we are glibly using the term "evolution" in a way that provides no meaning. As a trained biologist, I speak of evolution of species as a result of Natural Selection. So we have set up a dialectic (or entanglement if you wish) of the inner drive, let's stay self-assembly through DNA and the propensity for mutation, and an outer drive, let's call it the environment. In Buddhist terms neither of these drives have any meaning, but in Western logic they do. Now, we can call Natural Selection anything we want, from God to Chance. In MoQ parlance, we can attribute natural selection to Dynamic Quality. This would provide one of the many definitions for Dynamic Quality. If this is the case, then the levels are evolving due to the selective process of Dynamic Quality. By this reasoning we cannot say that things are evolving towards Dynamic Quality for that would be like saying a species is evolving towards the environment, and such a statement is senseless.
It seems to me that we forget that there are two sides to what is happening, the outside pressures and the inside pressures. Of course such an analogy can be extended to the mind/body dialectic, but that is another subject, and once again brings up entanglement (whatever that means). When we speak of Natural Selection, we treat is as a constant. However, it is plain to see that such outside pressures are also changing. We could ask what is the selective process making natural selection evolve? If I were a physicist, I would say the natural forces (gravity and such). However by extension of analogy, we can also suppose that the forces themselves are evolving. That is, gravity and the quantum forces are changing which results in all our measurements such as time and distance constantly changing. To the simple mind, that would bring in the concept of relativism, which I hope we do not revisit. So, what is the cause for this change? If I were a priest I would say God is making things change. It would be tempting to state that the cause of all change or evolution is Dynamic Quality. However to say that makes the concept of Dynamic Quality meaningless in a metaphysical sense, because it simply creates a word for "effecting all change". Evolution can simply mean the stepwise change of things that we can only see in hindsight. If that is the definition, then let's just talk about the history of the world. So, I ask the group, What do you mean by "Evolution"? I just seems to me that we are using the word Evolution as a catch phrase for something that it is not. It may seem like it relates to the sciences, but it most certainly does not. The term provides practical awareness in biology, but I do not see it in MoQ. Cheers, Mark On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 9:11 PM, Dan Glover <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > 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
