[Arlo previously] Here, with evolution, we see a singular process (the movement of patterns towards "betterness") occurring throughout nature and history. I think it's a safe inference to say this process will continue. Indeed, I think evolution is simply the visible manifestation of Quality. [Case] Arlo, you have made this sort of statement several times and while it jibes with Pirsig, it does not accord well with evolutionary theory as I understand it. What is this "betterness"? Is this "betterness" in the sense that history is written by the survivors so it is or was better for them?
[Arlo] Hi Case. Your question seems to focus primarily on social-historical evolution. In this sense, yes, I'd argue that people act in accordance to what they think is "better", and history tends to side with the victors of conflict. Don't confuse, however, my statement that things evolve towards betterness with the idea of a straight, upward-slanting line. Violence is often used to reify static patterns and stifle, or even destroy, movement towards "betterness" that threatens the foundations of instantiated power. History could be seen as a constant struggle to move forward when each step forward creates additional webs of power that want to stop that movement. In the aggregate, however, and we could be talking tens of thousands of years, the overall tendency is towards Quality (if you prefer that over "betterness"). Our lives are in nearly all ways "better" than early human life. Does that mean we haven't misstepped, or ran too quickly towards a false idea? Not at all, we most certainly have. The question also harkens back to how we fix a belief that something is "better". Many Germans felt following Hitler was movement towards "betterness", as did the flood of European immigrants who decimated the Native populations of this land. This is why I find critical thinking to be so, well, critical. Peirce identified four ways we "fix" our beliefs; tenacity, authority, a priori and scientific methodology. Although Peirce was not able to comment on Pirsig's extension of science, the basic tenants seem to reveal that most people are satisfied relying on tenacity and authority to fix many, if not most, of their beliefs. This was the central problem of The Reich and the Native American exterminations. Power, in these cases centralized in Europe, manipulated the understanding of "better" to advance their own power, while most simply bought in either out of fear or promises of sharing in the power. Also realize that I place no preeminent, extra-natural role to "man". There is no extra-natural entity protecting us, as "his children", from the natural processes of biological and inorganic reality. An asteroid is an asteroid, a virus is a virus, ice ages come and go, and we can only respond, and maybe not when the time comes and we are driven into extinction. In a sense, of course, that asteroid is itself following inorganic quality, it is doing what asteroids do, and while its existence follows inorganic quality, it may very well bring about the end of certain biological and social and intellectual patterns. [Case] Or do you see this as "betterness" in some metaphysical or cosmological sense? This smacks of teleology and Microsoft Word does not even recognize "betterness" as a word. [Arlo] My version of Word does not recognize "Machinima" either. Should you stop using it? I see "betterness" as the reason anything moves from point A to point B. Can you think of anything that moves from A to B because of "worseness"? Or, if its a completely indifferent state, why move? 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
