Hello everyone On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 12:36 AM, X Acto <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> >>>Ron: >>> 2. Dynamic Quality is natural selection at work >> undefined betterness is natural selection >> on every level. > > Dan: > Natural selection pertains to Darwin's theory of evolution, or in > other words, a metaphysics of substance, as RMP explains in LILA. Here > are a couple quotes: > > "Phaedrus thought this was why no one before had ever seemed to have > come up with the idea that the world is primarily value. The word is > too vague. The "value" that holds a glass of water together and the > "value" that holds a nation together are obviously not the same thing. > Therefore to say that the world is nothing but value is just > confusing, not clarifying." > > "Biological man doesn't invent cities or societies any more than pigs > and chickens invent the farmer that feeds them. The force of > evolutionary creation isn't contained by substance. Substance is just > one kind of static pattern left behind by the creative force." > > Dan comments: > > Within the framework of the MOQ, biological quality, or Dynamic > natural selection, is not the same as social quality, or the Dynamic > force of celebrity. The the levels have almost nothing in common other > than an evolutionary history. > > Ron: > They are all forms of betterness, and freedom of choice which is what we are > debating > > Here's why: > > "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." Lila > > "Dynamic Quality is not structured and yet it is not chaotic. > It is value that cannot be contained by static patterns. What > the substance-centered evolutionists were showing with their > absence of final 'mechanisms' or 'programs' was not an air-tight > case for the biological goallessness of life. What they were > unintentionally showing was a superb example of how values > create reality."Lila > > Ron comments: > Natural selection is Dynamic Quality at work. What they were > unintentionally showing was a superb example of how values > create reality. > > Adding this: > > "This division of all biological evolutionary patterns into a Dynamic function > and a static function continues on up through higher levels of evolution." > > Ron adds: > Concluding with this statement which is contradictory to your viewpoint Dan > > "the shift in cell reproduction from mitosis to meiosis to permit sexual > choice > and > > allow huge DNA diversification is a Dynamic advance. So is the collective > organization > > of cells into metazoan societies called plants and animals. So are sexual > choice, symbiosis, death and regeneration, communality, communication, > speculative thought, curiosity and art. Most of these, when viewed in a > substance-centered evolutionary way are thought of as mere incidental > properties of the molecular machine. But in a value-centered explanation > of evolution they are close to the Dynamic process itself, pulling the pattern > of life forward to greater levels of versatility and freedom."-Lila > > He also says this concerning betterness, natural selection and intellectual > good which you say have nothing in common: > > "We see that he's conducting his experiments for exactly the same purpose as > the subatomic forces had when they first began to create him billions of years > ago. He's looking for information that will expand the static patterns of > evolution itself and give both greater versatility and greater stability > against hostile static forces of nature. He may have personal motives such > as 'pure fun,' that is, the Dynamic Quality of his work. But when he applies > for funds he will normally and properly tie his request to some branch of > humanity's overall evolutionary purpose."-Lila > > He will tie it to the betterment of humanity > > "Because Quality is morality. Make no mistake about it. They're identical. And > if Quality > > is the primary reality of the world then that means morality is also the > primary > reality > > of the world. The world is primarily a moral order."-Lila > > " The tests of truth > are logical consistency, agreement with experience, and economy of > explanation. > The > > Metaphysics of Quality satisfies these."-Lila > > > And so does my explanation Dan, supported with quotes from THE MoQ in black > and > white read from Lila at your suggestion. > > can we drop the smug now?
Dan: I don't understand what you're getting at, Ron. I read this post several days ago and thought, well, I'll put it aside a few days and maybe I can make sense of it. But reading it again today, no. You seem to be subscribing to the theory that if one throws enough spaghetti at the wall, some will stick. You say the quotes you offer contradict my viewpoint. Only it is not my viewpoint. It is taken directly from LILA. So you seem to be saying that the quotes you've posted contradict the quotes I posted. I just don't see it. I supose anyone can take a static pattern and use it to contradict another static pattern. Maybe that's what's happening here. For the record, I am not being smug, Ron. I am feeling rather frustrated though that our discussion isn't progressing. Rather, it seems to be devolving. I am sure I am as much at fault as anyone, however. Thank you, 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
