>>ROG:
>>I have no problem with recognizing that there are value attractors in
>>evolution. I am OK with the causation-as-evolution angle too. No teleology
>>or mystical purposes are required for either.
>
>ERIN: You are confusing me here. You say you have no problem that there
>are value attractors? So you don't have a problem with "Pirsig saw that
>empiricism could be viewed 'better' as B values precondition A."
>Why is this not teleological?
>
>ROG:
>Not sure why I am confusing you. I readily recognize that there are various
>patterns to evolution and that one such pattern is toward adaptability and
>versatility. For example, animals at the top-of-the-food-chain nitche tend
>to evolve in what is broadly called a "K strategy" defined as large, complex,
>intelligent, with heavy parental investment and slow development. There is
>an "attractor" toward such patterns. This in no way implies "evolution wants
>to seek out large, slow developing, intelligent species in nitches at the top
>of the food chain." As another example, evolution can lead to a pattern
>called an "arms race" within and between species. For example, the trend in
>forests toward tree height. This does not imply though that "evolution's goal
>was tall trees".
>
>Similarly, gravity can be explained by mathematical values in Newton's or
>Einstein's theories. Neither resorts to the pseudo-scientific teleological
>explanation of "matter wants to come together."
>
>"B values precondition A" is awkward, but it isn't teleological. Does this
>help?
It still sounds teleological to me. The goal is an undefined goal but
it is still a goal. "B values precondition A" fits the teleological
definition that:"the fact or character attributed to nature or natural
processes of being directed toward an end"
Now you keep coming up with these specific ends to make the
argument silly but I already said it is an undefined dynamic end.
Take the progress idea, you are comparing two societies to
see which is better. That comparison involves a third variable,and that third
variable is the "goal". It doesn't involve specifics like
should Gore or Bush win but it is nonetheless a goal and
therefore teleological to me. I am not reading teleological to be necessarily
theological though and the word purpose is kind of a loaded word.
erin
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
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 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:29 BST