>>>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.
> 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. > RMP:> "Dynamic Quality is natural selection at work"-Lila > "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. . ."-Lila 'So what Phaedrus was saying was that not just life, but everything, is an ethical activity. It is nothing else. When inorganic patterns of reality create life the Metaphysics of Quality postulates that they've done so because it is 'better' and that this definition of 'betterness'- this beginning response to Dynamic Quality- is an elementary unit of ethics upon which all right and wrong can be based.(LILA, p 161) 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. Ron: I reduced it down to the basic conflicting points above to add clarity to the contradiction. Yes the quotes are contradicting, and when all one recognizes is interpretive legitimacy, then we are always at a stalemate and each point of view is relative. Like Bo and Platt, clinging to one out of context quote as representing the framework of THE MoQ is unreasonable. Link a few quotes up to support your case, show some continuity in your interpretation. Claiming THE MoQ stands independant of interpretation or that all you are doing is presenting The MoQ sans interpretation just isn't making a philosophical arguement for you point of view. RMP is the only one who can make that claim and even he would have to offer an explanation rather than just slough it off as "just read Lila". Dan: 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. Ron: If all you are going to do is point to one small quote to support your criticism then that sort of thing is going to happen in a discussion. 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
