Quoting ARLO J BENSINGER JR <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > [Platt] > You seem to make two assumptions about DQ. First, that if something can't be > predicted it must be a response to DQ. Second, if it moves, it must be > responding to DQ. Is this correct? > > [Arlo] > Pirsig writes, "When inorganic patterns of reality create life the Metaphysics > of Quality postulates that they've done so because it's "better" and that this > definition of "betterness" â this beginning response to Dynamic Quality..."
Please notice the past tense: "they've done so . . ." > "It's better here" is a response to DQ. It is in the moment, it is not > static. "It's better here" can and often does "emerge" (love that word) from a static pattern. Because of it's biological static pattern, even a worm knows when "It's better here" -- for a worm. > [Platt] > I can no more answer these questions than you can answer when animals first > became animals, or cats first became cats. > > [Arlo] > These questions are indeed answerable, although we lack the ability to > pinpoint > "the day", we can look at the fossil record and see when "cats" appeared in > history. The fossil record is a record "after the fact" of an animal's "emergence." > [Platt] > But if you read Pirsig's chapter 11 in Lila, you'll find a full explanation of > the evolutionary process. > > [Arlo] > Which says nothing to your point or these questions, and constitutes simply > avoidance on your part. If we interpret Pirsig to say that animals today can > not respond to DQ, then we have to ask, when could they? what was different > between them "then" and them "now"? Is ability to respond to DQ dependent on > human biology? Does that mean nothing could respond to DQ before people? If > they could, then how? How could cats at one time respond to DQ? Did their > biology change? I repeat. I can no more answer these question than you can answer when animals became animals, fossil record or no fossil record. If you say something like animals appeared 300 million years ago, that will be my answer to your questions, too. > As with the Pirsig quote above, DQ is at its most understandable "it's better > here". And your cat experiences that biologically quite readily. Sure. Like I said, from it's static biological patterns, my cat knows when "it's better here" like a worm does, only my cat has a different reality than a worm. Each responds as it needs to to survive in the reality it knows. > [Platt] > Elevating man is exactly what the MOQ does in the evolutionary moral heirarchy > explicated in the MOQ. Don't you recall Pirsig's statement that man is > absolutely preferable to a fatal germ? Why? Because man is higher on the moral > evolutionary ladder. Far from re-trenching to S/O, elevating man is the > essence > of a value metaphysics. > > [Arlo] > It places man in a moral continuum, yes, but does not abstract man out of the > cosmos. By elevating DQ to a "man only" event, you've essentially removed > "man" > from "nature", a dangerous S/O dualistic view. I've done nothing of the kind. ------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/ 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/
