Hello everyone On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 3:33 PM, 118 <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Dan, > Many thanks for indulging me on this topic.
Hi Mark You're welcome. >Mark: > 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. Dan: The MOQ has no argument with the theory of evolution, from what I understand. Mark: 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. Dan: Within the framework of the MOQ, "things," or objects, are inorganic and biological patterns of value. They ARE static quality. >Mark: > 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? Dan: You need to re-read the quote I offered. If we are talking about individual species, we are talking about a species 3.5 billion years old. I doubt that makes sense. Mark: 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. Dan: Again, within the framework of the MOQ, natural selection and Dynamic Quality are seen as synonymous. Mark: 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. Dan: I'm sorry Mark but this doesn't make sense. I don't know where to even start. >Mark: > 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? Dan: Once again, Dynamic Quality and evolution are seen as synonymous within the framework of the MOQ. >> >> 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?). Dan: Yes this is correct. But it isn't my analogy. It is Robert Pirsig's analogy as described in LILA. Mark: I would be interested > to read more on this subject. Dan: I've been attempting to get you to read LILA for some time now. Mark: 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. Dan: I am not sure I understand. The MOQ is provisional. It works until something better comes along. > > > >> 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. Dan: The MOQ doesn't change the principles of thermodynamics. It changes how we view those principles. Mark: 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. Dan: Like the principles of gravity, there are many interpretations of the principles of thermodynamics. I would say all support the concept of value, however, otherwise they would not exist. Someone thought them up, so they had value to someone. They didn't just pop into being. >Mark: > 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. Dan: Exactly. >> >>>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. Dan: I infer it from the content of your posts. Mark: 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? Dan: Of course I do. >Mark: > 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? Dan: I subscribe to the MOQ on account of it explaining reality better than other metaphysical frameworks. >> >> 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? >Mark: > 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. Dan: Exactly. There is no mechanism. That is what Robert Pirsig is saying. >> >> 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? Dan: See above. >> >> 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? Dan: I assumed you understood the quote about Lila being a collection of four patterns of value. Obviously you do not. Again, that is why you need to read the book, read the book, read the book, etc. >> >> 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. Dan: Yes Mark. That is very civil of you. Mark: 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? Dan: Answered that one already. If you have read my posts the way you read LILA, then I understand your dilemma. Read it again. You simply haven't got it. 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
