At 04:13 AM 3/9/2007, Jos wrote: Greetings Jos,
Somewhere in this statement Arlo replaced "a movement towards betterness" with " a movement towards Quality". My subjective call is that "Quality" is amoral, and all value events are subjective. Marsha >[Arlo] > >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? > >Err, Jos scratches head.... >Try this: > >Various chambers contain inert (and uncharged, helium, xenon, argon >etc) but comercially valuable purified confined gases, dividers are >removed such that spontaneously the gases diffuse into one another. >Which state is "better", pure usefull substrates or the melange? > >(Assuming hypothetically that: No bonding is occurring and there are >no energetics changes in the 1st state as compared to the second and >that the primary arrangement of mollecules (irrespective of >compound)in state one and two are identical in terms of velocity, >realtive distances etc) > >The only difference is subjective cultural/intellectual value in the >eyes of the observer, to whom the resulting spontaneously occurring >result is has almost no value as compared with the highly valuable >starting point. > >Discuss. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of MarshaV > > Sent: 08 March 2007 20:08 > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [MD] Oneness, Dualism & Intellect > > > > > > > > Arlo, > > > > Seems like an excellent answer! > > > > Marsha > > > > > > At 01:56 PM 3/8/2007, Arlo wrote: > > >[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/ > > > > > > 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/ > > > > PLEASE NOTE: THE ABOVE MESSAGE WAS RECEIVED FROM THE INTERNET. > > On entering the GSI, this email was scanned for viruses by > > the Government Secure Intranet (GSi) virus scanning service > > supplied exclusively by Cable & Wireless in partnership with > > MessageLabs. > > In case of problems, please call your organisational IT Helpdesk. > > The MessageLabs Anti Virus Service is the first managed > > service to achieve the CSIA Claims Tested Mark (CCTM > > Certificate Number 2006/04/0007), the UK Government quality > > mark initiative for information security products and > > services. For more information about this please visit >www.cctmark.gov.uk > > >This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention >of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or >copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, >please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail. > >This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention >of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or >copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, >please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail. > >This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be >monitored, recorded and retained by the Department For >Constitutional Affairs. E-mail monitoring / blocking software may be >used, and e-mail content may be read at any time. You have a >responsibility to ensure laws are not broken when composing or >forwarding e-mails and their contents. > > >This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention >of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or >copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, >please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail. > >This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention >of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or >copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, >please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail. > >This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be >monitored, recorded and retained by the Department For >Constitutional Affairs. E-mail monitoring / blocking software may be >used, and e-mail content may be read at any time. You have a >responsibility to ensure laws are not broken when composing or >forwarding e-mails and their contents. > >The original of this email was scanned for viruses by Government >Secure Intranet (GSi) virus scanning service supplied exclusively >by Cable & Wireless in partnership with MessageLabs. >On leaving the GSI this email was certified virus free. >The MessageLabs Anti Virus Service is the first managed service to >achieve the CSIA Claims Tested Mark (CCTM Certificate Number >2006/04/0007), the UK Government quality mark initiative for >information security products and services. For more information >about this please visit www.cctmark.gov.uk >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/ 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/
