Hi Dan, Many thanks for indulging me on this topic. Several years ago, this topic was discussed at length between Krimel and me, you may recall this. I for one lend more credence to the postulates of MoQ than I do to the metaphysics presented by the Darwinistic theory of evolution. I am not sure if you are the same, or if you believe that evolution in biology is adequately explained as it is. Given that I am a biologist who is skeptical of current theories of evolution as the best explanation, I also bring this with me to MoQ. And no, I am not a creationist or one who believes in the design by some intelligence. I do believe, however, that better theories will come along to explain things. It would appear that Pirsig fully accepts the premises of evolution as written, and substitutes progress towards Dynamic Quality instead of Survival, although the two are not exclusive in their rhetoric.
Thank you for the quotes which are the ones I have reviewed as well as a few others dealing with the perception of Change in Lila. More below. On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 9:36 PM, Dan Glover <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello everyone > > > I've posted this quote before without success, but as they say, try, try > again: > > ". . . It isn't Lila that has quality; it's Quality that has Lila. > Nothing can have Quality. To have something is to possess it, and to > possess something is to dominate it. Nothing dominates Quality. If > there's domination and possession involved, it's Quality that > dominates and possesses Lila. She's created by it. She's a cohesion of > changing static patterns of this Quality. There isn't any more to her > than that. The words Lila uses, the thoughts she thinks, the values > she holds, are the end product of three and a half billion years of > the history of the entire world. She's a kind of jungle of > evolutionary patterns of value. She doesn't know how they all got > there any more than any jungle knows how it came to be." [LILA] > > Dan comments: > > This is an excellent synopsis of the framework of the MOQ. Lila (a > fictional character portraying an "every-person") is a collection of > four static patterns of value along with undefined Dynamic Quality. > She doesn't possess this Quality (which I use as synonymous with > static quality/Dynamic Quality), rather she is possessed by "it". She > is the end result of 3.5 billion years (give or take) of evolutionary > history. She doesn't understand how these evolutionary patterns came > into being, she just knows they are there. [Mark] Yes, it is impossible to posses Quality as I understand it, things can express Quality however, and as such I talk about the appearance of Quality. I am not sure if you agree with this. You accept the premises imposed by your statement of 3.5 billion years of evolutionary history. You then operate within that acceptance. So, let's look at what this means. Evolution dictates that what is currently present is the result of the interactions between the outside environment, and the individual species. With regard to MoQ, we would then take the levels to be an individual species as an analogy. Is this a correct interpretation of your presumption? The selective force is then Quality instead of "Natural selection", which selects between all possible levels to present us at this time with the four levels. The pressures behind the survival of these levels is that they progress towards dynamic quality better than any other configuration. Remember that biological evolution requires competition for a limited amount or resources. Otherwise things would not change. Now, this is no different from the teleology that is presented by the survival paradigm. In order to accept such evolutionary terms, one would have to observe those levels which have not survived, in the same way that species become extinct. This also implies that Dynamic Quality acts as a pathway with a predicted end. This, however, is different from current evolutionary theory which states that the predicted end keeps changing as the environment changes. The environment is also evolving. In you opinion, is dynamic quality evolving? > > Here is another quote: > > "The theory had arrived in his mind several months ago with the > statement, "All life is a migration of static patterns of quality > toward Dynamic Quality." It had been boiling around in his mind ever > since. > > "In traditional, substance-centered metaphysics, life isn't evolving > toward anything. Life's just an extension of the properties of atoms, > nothing more. It has to be that because atoms and varying forms of > energy are all there is. But 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] > > Dan comments: > > In the MOQ, life is evolving toward Dynamic Quality. Life isn't > composed of atoms, as it is in a materialistic metaphysics. It is > composed of patterns of value. Within the MOQ, all we know is composed > of patterns of value evolving towards Dynamic Quality. [Mark] I fully accept the metaphysical principle that what we see is an appearance of Quality, whether it be construed as atoms of whatever. Those are just words and concepts. I do not understand the concept of patterns, but if I can extend your analogy, the evolution is one from the static to the dynamic (is this correct?). I would be interested to read more on this subject. The evolutionary theory as presented for MoQ is like a structure where all parts are required for it to stand, and as such is a single species. > > Here's yet another quote: > > "A similar analysis could be made with other physical laws such as the > Second Law of Thermodynamics, and it seemed to Phaedrus that if one > gathered together enough of these deliberate violations of the laws of > the universe and formed a generalization from them, a quite different > theory of evolution could be inferred. If life is to be explained on > the basis of physical laws, then the overwhelming evidence that life > deliberately works around these laws cannot be ignored. The reason > atoms become chemistry professors has got to be that something in > nature does not like laws of chemical equilibrium or the law of > gravity or the laws of thermodynamics or any other law that restricts > the molecules' freedom. They only go along with laws of any kind > because they have to, preferring an existence that does not follow any > laws whatsoever. > > "This would explain why patterns of life do not change solely in > accord with causative "mechanisms" or "programs" or blind operations > of physical laws. They do not just change valuelessly. They change in > ways that evade, override and circumvent these laws. The > patterns of life are constantly evolving in response to something > "better" than that which these laws have to offer." [LILA] > > Dan comments: > > Here, RMP states that quite a different theory of evolution could be > inferred by taking into account the deliberate violation of laws, > since life tends to work around these laws. There are no mechanisms > causing evolution yet static patterns do not evolve valuelessly. They > evolve in response to Dynamic Quality, something "better". > [Mark] Krimel and I also discussed this premise. The theory of thermodynamics is a metaphysical interpretation of what we see. What are considered to be laws (above), are a series of equations which have been created to simulate what is observed. That is, the action of something on matter and energy. In order to create a case for violation, one has to fully accept the principles of thermodynamics. I will have to assume that you do. If this is the case, there are many explanations as to why life exists and still conforms to the theories of thermodynamics. I will not go into these, but they are available on respectable sites on the Internet. If we fully accept thermodynamics and also accept that there is a violation of the laws of entropy, this does not necessarily support a concept of value, as much as it supports the notion that thermodynamics is incomplete. I am not sure if I am being clear here. Now, something better is very similar to the concept of something surviving, so I do not see much difference in the paragraph above from conventional evolutionary theory. > >>Mark: >> My intention is to broaden the understanding of MoQ, which is >> certainly possible with communication made available by the Internet. > > Dan: > Then I would suggest that you need to understand what it is you wish > to broaden. You don't. [Mark] Thanks again for helping me here. > > Mark: >> This is a room for discussion and creating understanding. It is not a >> classroom where dogma is taught. If you have something intelligent to >> say about evolution, then please present it. > > Dan: > > Again, READ THE BOOK!!!! [Mark] I am not sure why you think I have not read the book. What I am bringing up are some difficulties that I have with it. That is why I submit questions on this forum. Do you submit questions as well? My desire is to provide appropriate paths through which people can live by MoQ. Thus my interest and questions. Each of us can draw from a reservoir of experience and knowledge to help progress the veracity of MoQ. The idea is to provide a more meaningful understanding of existence. At least for me. Why do you subscribe to MoQ? > > Mark: > That is the purpose of >> this thread as I understand it. >> >> Dan, my question to you is: What do you mean by evolutionary history? >> Biological evolutionary forces point to the self assembly of >> organisms, and their ability to mutate. The other side of the >> equation is the culling process which allows some to persist and >> others not. > > Dan: > Pretty simplistic. Why mutate at all? What is the point? The theory is that we mutate to survive an ever changing environment, and I agree that such a thing can be considered to be teleological. If instead we are mutating to reach something that cannot be defined, I am not sure why people would choose to subscribe to that, unless we give them a good reason. If we mutate to become dynamic quality, I do not see the mechanism with which I can explain this. > > Mark: > If this is applied in an MoQ perspective, this would >> indicate that the levels self-assemble through some kind of primary >> force, and then Quality does the selection. Is this what you mean? > > Dan: > Well, maybe in some sense. But Quality isn't actually doing the > selecting. Frankly, your statements do not make a lot of sense. [Mark] How then can you use the term evolution? > > Mark: >> You bring in social and intellectual evolutionary forces which have >> shaping intention, of what I am not quite sure. Are these forces the >> same as the biological ones? > > Dan: > No, of course not. Again, if you read LILA you will understand this > better. That is why we are here. To discuss LILA. [Mark] I was simply reiterating your statement there, if of course not, then why did you present it? > > Mark: > Is the selection process again one of >> Quality which then allows some to persist? > > Dan: > No this just isn't right at all. > > Mark: > If this is the case, then >> you create a dichotomy between Quality, and static quality, which I do >> not think is appropriate. If instead the dichotomy is between dynamic >> quality and static quality as two independently operating entities, I >> also do not think this fits with MoQ. Any elucidation of this on your >> part is more than welcome, if you wish. > > Dan: > We need both Dynamic Quality AND static quality. They are the > fundamental split in the framework of the MOQ. Yet they do not operate > independently in the way you seem to think. Dynamic Quality and static > quality are not a dichotomy. The former is undefined. It comes before > intellectualization, definition. It is the leading edge of experience. > Static quality is the fallout, if you will. [Mark] I do not think they operate independently, and believe the continuity of Quality between each as proposed by Marsha has rhetorical value. I was simply trying to apply the theory of evolution to MoQ. > >>> >>> Dan: >>> Again, this is silly. If you don't know the answers to your questions, >>> you NEED TO READ THE BOOK. Period. I haven't the time to write page >>> after page explaining the MOQ when it has already been more than >>> adequately explained by Robert Pirsig in LILA. >>> >> [Mark] >> Then why are we discussing things, if everything is already written? > > Dan: > To give us a starting point! This is a given, Mark. Also, it is one of > the requirements for joining the group. > > Mark: >> Your use of the term evolution seems a bit destructive of MoQ in its >> implications for reasons I have already presented. If you care not to >> provide reasons why you do this, then that is fine. Why do you >> participate if everything is already explained for you? Are you on >> some kind of mission of conversion? > > >> > > Dan: > Then show me how, Mark. Instead of whining and belly-aching, show me > how I am wrong. Unlike you, I am not pushing my own belief here. I am > doing my best to present the MOQ in the clearest way I can. That > starts with reading LILA and other subsequent works. Until you've > fashioned a base upon which to build knowledge, you are not going to > understand anything. You should know that, as a scientist. Right? [Mark] I am not sure why you think I am bellyaching. I have tried to be most civil with these discussion. Perhaps you are projecting. I hope I have provided the appropriate feedback concerning evolution so that you can see my dilemma. I have read Lila several times, and gone over certain chapters more than that. If you want to claim that I am lying, well, that is your choice. If you feel I should have gotten something different out of it, well, that is why I am here. Why are you here? Cheers, Mark > > 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
