From: abahn@comcast.net
Date: Mon Sep 15 2003 - 20:32:04 BST
Hi David M.,
I agree it only tells part of the story, but I think a very important part. As
far as seeking a new MOQ context, the quote from Pirsig seems to imply this is
not necessary. Pirsig states the MOQ addresses both of our concerns by "uniting
these opposed doctrines within a larger metaphysical structure."
Go to go. The Darwinian fan club is meeting. We have lots of work to do if we
are to keep the public emmersed under Darwin's world-view. :-)
Andy
> Hi
> The quote from Pirsig is good, I agree with it
> very much, but I think I would like the Darwinian
> fan club to explain to me how Darwin is compatible
> with teleology? My answer would be that it onlt tells
> a small part of the evolution story, we need to seek
> a new MOW context, unfortunately Darwin sits in a
> SOM context, hence it cannot talk about purpose
> without reducing it to half of the SOM dualism, the
> matter half.
>
> Regards
> David M
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <abahn@comcast.net>
> To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
> Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 5:54 PM
> Subject: Re: MD Darwinisn in dispute ?
>
>
> > Hi Bo,
> >
> > Thanks for the Pirsig quote on Darwinian theory.
> >
> > You said:
> > "The above solution - although valid - will never be understood/accepted
> as your
> > message and a lot of similar inputs up through the years indicate. From
> > Spencer's and Andy's comments it sounds as if Darwin either must be wrong
> or right."
> >
> > Andy:
> > I am just wondering what comments of mine would suggest that Darwin must
> be
> > either right or wrong. My thoughts have always been that Darwinian theory
> is a
> > very useful theory and helps us explain much about our experience. I find
> > Pirsig's thoughts you provided from Lila very illuminating on this. I
> have no
> > quarrel with accepting his solution at all other than his equating
> "fittest" and
> > "quality" with "best" at the beginning of the quote. But, he goes on to
> clear
> > this up with his discussion on "undefined quality", "undefined fitness"
> and
> > "dynamic quality at work." This all works for me.
> >
> > Regards
> > Andy
> >
> > ps (David M.) You see. Pirsig does address Darwinism in Lila. And from
> the
> > quote provided by Bo, it appears he has no quarrels with it at all. :-)
> >
> > > Ian, and all interested parties.
> > >
> > > 14 Sep. you wrote:
> > > > Sorry if this is all cleared-up but I've been away from the forum on
> > > > holiday for almost 2 weeks and have just been catching up today. I saw
> > > > a long debate on the rights and wrongs of Darwinism in there somwhere.
> > > > Surely the facts of Darwinism are clear, whatever groundwork others
> > > > did before Darwin, and however much others have extended its
> > > > understanding since.
> > >
> > > All cleared-up! Sure, haven't you read LILA? But speaking of evolution
> > > vs creation. When this discussion was young we spent a lot of time
> > > talking about the inorganic level because the current cosmological
> > > theory - the Big Bang - is just as controversial as Darwin's is on
> life,
> > > and the MOQ solution the same (even if Pirsig doesn't treat that
> > > issue) as the one below on biology.
> > >
> > > ................ LILA (Chapter 11 page 148) ................
> > > "Survival of the fittest" is meaningful only when "fittest" is equated
> with
> > > "best," which is to say,"Quality." And the Darwinians don't mean just
> > > any old quality, they mean undefined Quality! As Mayr's article makes
> > > clear, they are absolutely certain there is no way to define what that
> > > "fittest" is. Good! The "undefined fittest" they are defending is
> identical
> > > to Dynamic Quality. Natural selection is Dynamic Quality at work.
> > > There is no quarrel whatsoever between the Metaphysics of Quality
> > > and the Darwinian Theory of Evolution. Neither is there a quarrel
> > > between the Metaphysics of Quality and the "teleological" theories
> > > which insist that life has some purpose. What the Metaphysics of
> > > Quality has done is unite these opposed doctrines
> > > within a larger metaphysical structure that accommodates both of
> > > them without contradiction".(end quote)
> > >
> > > .......................................................................
> > >
> > > The above solution - although valid - will never be
> > > understood/accepted as your message and a lot of similar inputs up
> > > through the years indicate. From Spencer's and Andy's comments it
> > > sounds as if Darwin either must be wrong or right.
> > >
> > > Accordingly I have chosen to see the Darwinist vs Creationist - as well
> > > as the Big Bang and other science vs religion disagreements - as part
> > > of the Intellect-Society struggle and we know that these will never be
> > > resolved from their own premises, rather DISSOLVED by the MOQ
> > > which sees this intrinsic level relationship.
> > >
> > > Sincerely
> > > Bo
> > >
> > > PS
> > > You concluded:
> > > > Darwin's undisputed genius was to suggest evolution by natural
> > > > selection, survival by fitness for the environment over many
> > > > generations of the organism, whatever causes the original novelty
> > > > (mutation). It took the work of many to establish speciation
> > > > mechanisms, genetics etc, but the core fact is clear. No ?
> > >
> > > I agree, Darwin's intellectual-objective explanation is a level higher
> > > than the social-mythological one, but the Quality tenet of the higher
> > > level out of the former must be heeded ...here as elsewhere.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> > > Mail Archives:
> > > Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> > > Nov '02 Onward -
> http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
> > > MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> > > http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
> > >
> >
> >
> > MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> > Mail Archives:
> > Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> > Nov '02 Onward -
> http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
> > MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
> >
> > To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> > http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
> >
> >
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archives:
> Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Sep 15 2003 - 20:33:02 BST