To: Clarke, Andrea, Matt, Marty, Rasheed, etc
From: Rog
ANDREA (To Clarke)
I suspect that Pirsig's position is biased towards the "naive" view of
evolution
as continuous progress with man at its highest peak, which is more or less
what
the common sense about evolution is, too. I recall that somewhere in Lila he
equates evolution and DQ (at the biological level).
Unfortunately the naive view of evolution (as represented by some classical
drawings that depict "lower" animals slowly turning into humans) is really
"fabricated" by us and has long been criticised as a myth by evolutionists
themselves.
Evolution is of course, for example, not a linear but an ever-branching
process.
There is no scientific reason to consider beetles or bacteria "lower than
man" in
the evolutionary "scale", nor there is any scientific reason to speak of a
scale
(ranking) at all.
ROG:
I have some handwritten notes on this topic that I had yet to type for a
section of the book I am working on. Let me use this as the excuse to type
them up and see if the ideas have value.....
*******EVOLUTION'S DIRECTION**********
There are two competing camps on the subject of evolution. First, there are
those biologists, anthropologists and historians that insist that there is no
inherent direction to biological or social evolution. They can point to the
stability of bacteria, to devolution, to barbarian hordes , to the fall of
Rome and, most convincingly, to the Jerry Springer show. On the other hand,
there is also a contingent of each field that points out that there has
obviously been a general evolutionary direction toward increased complexity
and organization in both life and culture.
As usual, they are both correct. What they seem to miss is that both
theories or views are not mutually exclusive. Evolution can lead to
increased organization and complexity without any inherent direction. As an
example, picture the starting place for biological or social complexity and
organization. By definition, they must start from zero -- or at least near
zero. Life must start from non life, and society must start from
individuals. From here, the 'no directionists' are correct. Both life and
society can vary or evolve in either direction, including back down to zero
toward non-life (aka death) and non-culture (aka solitary organism).
However, it can also go up toward more complexity, more organization and
better division of resources and efforts. Further, life and culture can also
change laterally, to something of similar complexity, but different. Wolves
can evolve into coyotes, tree frogs into pond frogs, Oprah can lead to Jerry
Springer, and so on. At any given time, zero complexity is the limit to the
low end. However, there is no limit in the other directions. Life and
society are boundless upwardly and laterally. In other words, random,
directionless evolution bounded at zero is indeed destined to gain in
complexity, organization and versatility.
Further, this trend will continue to occur over time. For example, let's say
we are able to design a device that can measure social and biological
complexity, and that the absolute apex of complexity at a given point in time
is measured at 500 c.u.'s (complexity units -- a standardized, empirical
measuring system that I just arbitrarily made up!) From here, the life or
culture can move in any direction, toward something less complex (say 450
c.u.'s) something different but equally complex (another 500 c.u.'s) or
something more complex (550 c.u.'s) Again, directionless or random or
undefineable change or evolution is mathematically guaranteed to gain
complexity. As long as something is as likely to evolve (in this instance
meaning gaining organizational complexity) as devolve (meaning the opposite),
SOMETHING is bound to evolve.
In general, the majority of biologists support the 'no inherent direction'
belief in the evolution of life. This means that any given species is not
guaranteed to go in any particular direction, yet overall, complexity is
bound to increase in some species. (this certainly should lead social
Darwinists to reconsider their views!)
As for anthropologists, they have tended to be of the belief that there is no
inherent direction to cultural evolution either (often as a backlash to
cultural darwinists and fascists) Again, it does not matter if they are
right or wrong though, as additional complexity is still inevitable if we
assume a sufficient population of cultures. In this particular case, I
suspect there is still a chance they may be wrong. Cultural or memetic
evolution is not random. It is influenced, at least partially, by design.
People try (admittedly often unsuccessfully) to direct social organizations
toward complexity and enhanced positive sum quality [this latter term is the
name of my book, and basically refers to interactive synergy, which I suggest
leads to many of the patterns of each level in the MOQ, and more importantly,
leads to the progression from lower levels to higher levels. In MOQ words,
synergy or positive sum quality is an essential identifiable static pattern
of value derived from DQ.]
The importance of fully understanding the nature of evolution's arrow is that
it clarifies certain fundamental assumptions. If you assume that life
evolves toward more complexity and versatility you would be right -- at least
in general. However, if you think humans or any other specific species are
destined to become more complex, you are wrong. They could become more
complex, less complex or just different.
As for societies, I suspect you would be right that individual cultures
become more complex over time (though I admit it is completely debatable.)
However, in general, with a sufficient variety of cultures, some of them are
sure to gain in positive sum quality [ again, this is referenced other places
in my writings as the synergy among and between individuals, as well as
between the society as a whole and its environment. I have several chapters
that trace social history within every continent toward increased
organization, synergy and complexity]
Let me cut off this thread at this point, but then I will rejoin into the
discussion with these thoughts as a backdrop. Andrea, Marty, Clarke, Matt,
Rasheed, etc please PLEASE give me feedback on the preceding as I move on to
commentary on you prior ideas.
Viva La Evolution!
Rog
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
