JOHN:
He concludes this unsatisfactory explanation with the following important
statement "These patterns have nothing in common except the historic
evolutionary process that created all of them. But that process is a process
of value evolution. Therefore the name 'static pattern of values' applies to
all. That's one puzzle cleared up." (Lila Ch 12)
Not so fast. While evolution is an important component of Pirsig's thought,
he has not justified the core statement that the evolutionary process "is a
process of value evolution". What he has done is examine the 'survival of
the
fittest' strand in evolutionary thought and he makes quite a good case for
fitness being a 'value' term. But again, this works at the biological level
of the organism, or the species; possibly even at the cellular level. It
takes a giant leap of faith to apply this with any coherence to inorganic
patterns, and yet this is precisely what is required. What we have is a form
of words which papers over the huge gaps between patterns with nothing in
common by assuming a universal process of 'value evolution'.
Avid:
What John does is letting his prejudice come in the way.
A theory [especially a metaphysical one] should be criticized in its ability
to explain and to function better then its older version it is replacing.
When looking at the evolutional mechanism RMP can do two things:
1. To see the biological level as an example only for other evolutionary
processes. In other words taking it as a principle into MoQ, to answer the
question how does SPQ1> DQ > SPQ2 motion happen? [SPQ = Static Pattern of
Quality].
And SPQ RMP means in any given layer.
2. To see the possibility of social and cultural layers as layers of made of
complex creatures that we as human are a part of [like having cells being
part of a tissue, and having other cells being a whole organism by
themselves].
In any case it is a theory that classifies and explains more and better then
before.
Darwin too in his evolutionary model admits he "has to start from the
middle" looking at the structure from a human point of view. From this point
of view WE ARE NOT USED to see inorganic SPQ as having preference of value,
but this is a result of SOM [seeing objects as not having free will], and
not an interistic flaw of MoQ.
If I take Popper views again, any given theory cannot be proved [but only
refuted]. So what RMP tries to do is to CONSTRUCT a metaphysics, which
cannot be refuted yet, and is more usable that old SOM, once we try to USE
IT [and not measure it in old SOM understandings].
and don't forget to be gentle
Avid
icq 6598359
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:11 BST