Nice try at a wind-up Mark ;-) maybe ? I was pointing out to "Mark and Dan" that not caring (for each other) was a problem, not-caring being the topic you (two) had already introduced into the topic. An on-topic comment.
Since you asked - I'm not sure what "used for" has to do with a relation between evolution and MoQ, but there is no doubt that evolution is a description of the processes relating levels and patterns in the MoQ - as Dan and Dave have pointed out and I've agreed. This is non-contentious, so I don't know what you're getting at. (I sense I'm not alone, but since it's non-contentious, it wasn't something I was planning to comment on.) Ian On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 9:27 PM, 118 <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Ian, > Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I appreciate you intention with > the latter part of your post. As you well know, my response to Dan > was that I was unaffected by his personal attack on what I posted, and > wished to return to the topic. I care enough about MoQ to refrain > from such rhetoric (most of the time). > > In this thread I have presented reasons why the term evolution, as it > is used in the biological sense, does not, cannot, and should not be > used for Quality. If you care to respond to these, then I would be > interested. Please explain how you adopt the term for MoQ, if you > wish. If you cannot do this, then there are a variety of other > threads where you can impart your intelligence. > > If instead you intend only to aggitate and create personal factions > within this forum, that is up to you. Personally I do not see such an > attitude as having much quality, but that is just my opinion. > > Regards, > Mark > > On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Ian Glendinning > <[email protected]> wrote: >> Spot on Dave (T) (And Mark & Dan mentioned) >> >> I certainly adopt "evolution" in a pan-neo-Darwinian way - with both >> positive and negative selection processes - in fact a view evolved by >> reading (and digesting) Pirsig and MoQ. But we always have these >> narrow vs broad definitional problems with the debate here. Those who >> prefer tight definitions and those who don't. >> >> Incidentally Mark said to Dan >> [Mark] >>> No, Dan, I am not asking you to care, this is simply a discussion of >>> MoQ and the terms used therein. >> >> And I say therein lies our problem - though police alert ;-) >> People who don't care should not be debating. >> Productive debate is far more than a "simple discussion of terms". >> Ian >> PS What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding ? >> >> On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 6:38 PM, David Thomas >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> [Dave butts in} >>> >>> This frustration, in part, may be due to the "evolution" in the use of the >>> word evolution. Since Darwin's "Origin" there has been a slow but steady >>> drift of evolution's primary meaning from "process of formation or growth; >>> development" to shorthand for his biological theory, "evolution >>> (growth,formation,development, unfolding etc) by natural selection". And it >>> is not always easy in the work of Pirsig or others to say for certain >>> exactly which way it is meant. For example, "evolution" only appears one >>> time in ZaMM: >>> >>> [ZaMM pg 64] >>> " About this Einstein had said, "Evolution has shown that at any given >>> moment out of all conceivable constructions a single one has always proved >>> itself absolutely superior to the rest," and let it go at that. But to >>> Phædrus that was an incredibly weak answer. The phrase "at any given moment" >>> really shook him. Did Einstein really mean to state that truth was a >>> function of time? To state that would annihilate the most basic presumption >>> of all science! >>> But there it was, the whole history of science, a clear story of >>> continuously new and changing explanations of old facts. The time spans of >>> permanence seemed completely random he could see no order in them. Some >>> scientific truths seemed to last for centuries, others for less than a year. >>> Scientific truth was not dogma, good for eternity, but a temporal >>> quantitative entity that could be studied like anything else." >>> >>> My interpretation is that Einstein is speaking about Darwin's theory of >>> "evolution." Isn't interesting that at 15 the precocious child Phaedrus >>> finds Einstein answer "incredibly weak" while the much older and successful >>> author Pirsig basically creates the whole of the MoQ by interpreting >>> Einstein "evolution" as all of reality. >>> >>> Dave >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 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 >> > 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
