Re: MD SOM's ambiguities--an opening for the MOQ

From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Thu Sep 25 2003 - 16:35:24 BST

  • Next message: Walter Schilling: "RE: MD Children and violence"

    Hi All:

    Previously I observed that the major theory upholding the edifice of
    SOM was Darwinian evolution, but that within the Darwinian theory were
    certain ambiguities that made it vulnerable to a new and better theory,
    namely, the MOQ.

    The first ambiguity and perhaps the weakest link in the SOM theory is
    it's completely inability to answer the question Pirsig asked, "Why
    survive?" The assumption at the root of evolutionary theory is that
    organisms struggle to survive. From the lowliest mutating virus to the
    highest self-aware human being, survival has high value, the motivating
    force that makes the whole evolutionary theory work. Without the urge
    to live and to reproduce, evolution collapses. Pirsig put it this way:

    "This is the sort of irrelevant-sounding question that seems minor at
    first, and the mind looks for a quick answer to dismiss it. It sounds
    like one of those hostile, ignorant questions some fundamentalist
    preacher might think up. But why do the fittest survive? Why does any
    life survive? It's illogical. It's self-contradictory that life should
    survive. If life is strictly a result of the physical and chemical
    forces of nature then why is life opposed to these same forces in its
    struggle to survive? Either life is with physical nature or it's
    against it. If it's with nature there's nothing to survive. If it's
    against physical nature then there must be something apart from the
    physical and chemical forces of nature that is motivating it to be
    against physical nature. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that
    all energy systems "run down" like a clock and never rewind themselves.
    But life not only "runs up," converting low-energy sea-water, sunlight
    and air into high-energy chemicals, it keeps multiplying itself into
    more and better clocks that keep "running up" faster and faster. Why,
    for example, should a group of simple, stable compounds of carbon,
    hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen struggle for billions of years to
    organize themselves into a professor of chemistry? What's the motive?"
    (Lila, chp.11)

    The typical response to the question, "Why survive?" and "What's the
    motive?"from SOMers is, "We don't answer 'why' or 'motive" questions.
    We only experiment and observe the results to see if the data agrees
    with the theory." Of course, that's not strictly the case. SOMers are
    always explaining why. "Why does a motorcycle run? Because it has a
    gasoline engine that works by . . etc., etc." In fact, all of science
    might be said to seek answers to why things are the way they are and
    work the way they do. When it can't find a reason, it substitutes
    either a mysterious self-organizing capability or chance. (In the case
    of evolution, it's mostly chance.) What science really means when it
    says we don't answer 'why' questions is that we cannot allow any hint
    of a supernatural purpose to enter our realm.

    Now there's a weak, ambiguous viewpoint if there ever was one. On the
    one hand, always seeking causes, on the other, avoiding causes at all
    costs because of rigid bias against the "conceptually unknown."

    Of course, not all SOMers share this bias, of course. Their are lots of
    mathematicians, physicists, anthropologists and others dedicated to
    scientific methodology who admit there's more to the world than that
    which meets the eye and can be measured by the physical senses. There
    are even some biologists who question evolutionary theory. But, by and
    large, ask the average college graduate if Darwinian evolution presents
    a complete and accurate picture of how we got here and the vast
    majority will agree. Thus, at an early age, SOM gets verified by one's
    supposedly wiser and smarter elders as the one true way to explain the
    world's apparent movement from simple beginnings to ever increasing
    complexity.

    But, that innocent sounding question, "Why survive?" taps a little hole
    in the SOM edifice which can act as the beginning to its eventual
    replacement by a much better metaphysics--the MOQ.

    Platt
           

    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 Sep 25 2003 - 16:34:59 BST