Hi Ian My mistake. I thought you had read my contention. Cheers, Mark
On Monday, March 28, 2011, Ian Glendinning <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 old 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
