From: Steve Peterson (peterson.steve@verizon.net)
Date: Fri Feb 21 2003 - 16:11:31 GMT
Johnny Moral, Squonk, Platt, all,
I think I heard Squonk say recently that evolution of the static levels is
toward DQ, as if eventually there will be no more static patterns (perhaps
I've misunderstood). Like Johnny Moral, I also didn't think that statement
made much sense, since static patterns emerged out of undifferentiated
Quality. As I see it, if static patterns were so bad, they wouldn't have
happened, so evolution can't be about getting rid of them but rather getting
better ones.
I disagree that evolution has 'no goal' as Johnny Moral says. Evolution (on
all levels as well as evolution of new levels) tends toward 'better-ness'
from which I think it follows that static patterns are better than no
patterns at all.
Darwin's value-free 'survival of the survivors' is explained as 'survival of
the biologically better'--a dynamic process through which all species are
continually changing in response to one another, so 'best' has no fixed
meaning, yet through this process, life forms get better and better. In
that way I could think of biological evolution as moving toward DQ (but
better, perhaps, is moving by way of DQ?) While a biological entity could
never get any closer to or further from DQ. DQ is a metaphor for this sort
of process at work that acts not just on the biological level but on all
static levels.
(Now I'm just thinking out loud)
..and between levels as well. Just as all species are constantly changing
in response to one another within the biological level, all social patterns
are changing in response to one another, and all intellectual patterns are
changing in response to one another. Likewise, social patterns change in
response to the ever-changing biological patterns, and intellectual patterns
change in response to the ever-changing social patterns. (Can a lower level
change in response to a higher one? hmmm) All of this adaptation produces
better and better patterns and even new levels. This process is what we've
come to describe as DQ...(oh no!...Did I just describe DQ as a static
pattern--the process of patterns responding to other patterns? There could
be a problem here.)
I'd be glad to hear what others think about evolution and DQ.
Regards,
Steve
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 : Fri Feb 21 2003 - 16:11:21 GMT