From: Paul Turner (paul@turnerbc.co.uk)
Date: Thu Aug 05 2004 - 15:18:19 BST
Hi Platt
In the last post I questioned the role of individuals in the process of
evolution and, in particular, the notion that individuals cause
evolution and this needs a little more explanation. I haven't the time
to give this the amount of clarity I would like, but I wanted to add a
little more to it here by way of summary and perhaps conclusion.
We may speak of a "step" in evolution. By this we may mean when latching
of new patterns occurs sufficiently to maintain that pattern's existence
with some stability. Just how the completion of this step can be
precisely defined is debatable but not at issue here. When such a step
is noticed we may look to find the first instance of this new pattern
and suggest that this is where and when the "evolution" first
occurred/began and may even confuse this with the cause of evolution.
Because the length of time from a new pattern emerging to the completion
of such an evolutionary step is evidently shorter as we go up the
levels, when it comes to intellect it is easier to determine a time and
a place, and a person, with which to associate this evolutionary step.
When a step takes decades, centuries, or millennia, as can happen with
social, biological and inorganic advances it becomes harder to identify
such an origin and so we may look more to a combination of factors which
brought about evolution rather than an individual.
What I am highlighting is that it is, to some degree, always a
combination of factors which brings about evolution, even when we
"pinpoint" an individual. For example, Pirsig wasn't born with the MOQ.
Before he arrived at the theory, as an infant he learned which things to
notice, he learned the English language, he gained an education, trained
as a biochemist, studied Indian philosophy, experienced Native American
mysticism with Dusenberry, taught freshman composition etc. All of these
things, along with Dynamic Quality, shaped the MOQ. You can take any one
of these things and trace its evolution back to a time when the
individual called Robert Pirsig didn't exist, before the social pattern
of the US existed, before the English language existed - all the way
back. In this long, long view of things, I think you can see how it
makes sense to view patterns as, in an important sense, independent of
*particular* individuals.
On the other hand (and I have not denied this throughout the dialogue),
without society, and biology, and matter, there are no intellectual
patterns. And you and I agree that all of these levels of patterns
compose individuals who live and die, and who, whilst living, are an
evolutionary relationship between Dynamic and static quality. It may be
that the meaning of death can be broadened to refer to the loss of the
ability to respond to Dynamic Quality. I don't know.
But, finally, I really think it is important for you to appreciate that
the individual is not containing the patterns. A glass contains water,
when you pour out the water, the glass remains. If you "pour out" the
patterns of an individual human, only Dynamic Quality remains, which
doesn't contain anything. It is a slip back into SOM to begin with the
existence of an individual who *has* experiences and therefore *has*
patterns. It is also important to see that the patterns which compose an
individual are changing and in a relationship with other patterns with
boundaries that are also changing and so, as there is nothing fixed
containing the patterns, an individual, as with everything, has
permanence only by postulation.
Anyway, once again, thanks for the dialogue.
Paul
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 : Thu Aug 05 2004 - 15:20:21 BST