mfers
Why is Dynamic more moral than Static?
Whether you lean towards the mystic or rational side of this issue a
good starting point is to look at Pirsig's basic take on EVOLUTION, for
the source of the question is the following quote:
*****
"In general, given a choice of two courses to follow and all other
things being equal, that choice which is more Dynamic, that is, at a
higher level of EVOLUTION, is more moral." pg. 183
*****
And then lest we forget that this evolving moral order is the essense of simplicity:
******
"Morality is not a simple set of rules. It's a very complex struggle of
conflicting patterns of values. This conflict is the residue of
EVOLUTION. As new patterns EVOLVE they come into conflict with old ones.
Each stage of EVOLUTION creates in its wake a wash of problems. Lila. p163
****
These conflicting patterns and problems are, in part, delineated by
Pirsig this way:
*****
"The intellect's EVOLUTIONARY purpose has never been to discover an
ultimate meaning of the universe. That is a relatively recent fad. Its
historical purpose has been to help a society find food, detect danger,
and defeat enemies. ... The cells Dynamically invented animals to
preserve and improve their situation. The animals Dynamically invented
societies, and societies. Dynamically invented intellectual knowledge
for the same reasons." pg. 344
"When you define morality scientifically as that which enhances
EVOLUTION it sounds as though you have really solved the problem of what
morality is. But then when you try to say specifically what is and what
isn't evolution and where evolution is going, you find you are right
back in the soup again....You can't really say whether a specific change
is EVOLUTIONARY at the time it occurs." pg. 256
"A human being is a collection of ideas, and these ideas take moral
precedence over a society. Ideas are patterns of value. They are at a
higher level of EVOLUTION than social patterns of value." pg. 185
"Today we are living in an intellectual and technological paradise and a
moral and social nightmare because the intellectual level of EVOLUTION,
in its struggle to become free of the social level, has ignored the
social level's role in keeping the biological level under control."Lila.
pg 308
"Cultures are not the source of all morals, only a limited set of
morals. Cultures can be graded and judged morally according to their
contribution to the EVOLUTION of life."
"One could almost define life as the organized disobedience of the law
of gravity. One could show that the degree to which an organism disobeys
this law is a measure of its degree of EVOLUTION. Lila. 143
" Sometimes a Dynamic increment goes forward but can find no latching
mechanism and so fails and slips back to a previous latched position.
Whole species and cultures get lost this way. Sometimes a static pattern
becomes so powerful it prohibits any Dynamic moves forward. In both
cases the EVOLUTIONARY process is halted for a while. But when itís not
halted the result has been an increase in power to control hostile
forces or an increase in versatility or both.." Lila-pp 147
*****
To understand the MoQ, one must understand one of it's most basic
tenants. Evolution is "progressive", it's going somewhere, and
irreguardless of whether we can detect it at the time, in general
everything is evolving toward higher moral levels.
******
"All life is a migration [or EVOLUTION] of static patterns of quality
toward Dynamic Quality." [or a higher level of morality, rightness,
suchness, or good ] pg. 160
'Dharma' is Quality itself, the principle of 'rightness' which gives
structure and purpose to the EVOLUTION of all life and to the EVOLVING
understanding of the universe which life has created." pg. 439
********
Like many of the precepts of the MoQ , "progressive evolution", is not
currently in vogue in the scientific community. J.E. Stewart, in his
book "Evolution's Arrow", while arguing that evolution is indeed
progressive summarizes the opposition this way:
**********
"Our ability to assess objectively whether evolution progresses does not
mean the issue is free of controversy. Evolutionists do not currently
agree on whether evolution is progressive. Most believe it is not. The
view that evolution is progressive and that humans are now at the
leading edge of evolution on this planet is not supported by most
evolutionary thinkers[2]. A major task of this book will be to show that
they are wrong.
Progressionist ideas about evolution were popular until the middle of
this century[3], but have since come under increasing attack. This is
largely because progressionists have been unable to identify any
plausible evolutionary mechanism that would continually drive
progressive change along some absolute scale. Anti-progressionists
such as the noted American evolutionary writer Stephen Jay Gould argue
that there is no such mechanism. They say that current evolutionary
theory does not include any process that would produce general and
on-going improvement as life evolves[4]. Natural selection adapts
populations of organisms only to the specific local circumstances
encountered by each population. This may produce some short-term
improvement and directional change as the organism adapts better to
local conditions, or as the environment changes. For example, a
population of snow hares might progressively evolve thicker fur if
average winter temperatures increase from year to year. But the
directional change will end when the opportunity for improvements in
local adaptations is exhausted, or when the local environment changes
again in some other direction. And, Gould argues, better adaptation to
local conditions will not produce general advance or progress. Changes
that adapt a particular organism to its specific environment would not
improve it for many other environments. A fish has no use for a better
wing, or a bird for more efficient gills. Gould cannot envisage
improvements that would be better in all conditions.
Gould and his supporters conclude that the earlier enthusiasm for
progressionist views has no sound evolutionary basis: there is no
mechanism within evolution that drives on-going progress; natural
selection is a process that produces only local adaptation, not general
advance or progress; and both the fossil record and the pattern of life
we see about us are consistent with this. According to Gould, the belief
that humans are at the leading edge of evolution is best explained as
wishful thinking."
**********
So it is clear that if the moral order of MoQ is to fly the one must
accept the "progressive" nature of evolution in the face of current
scientific opinion to the contrary.
On the other hand if the "progressive" view is accepted or acceptable,
then the MoQ is the metaphysics of choice.
3WD
PS: Rog, Is this the way out???????.
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:25 BST