glove (glove@indianvalley.com)
Mon, 29 Jun 1998 04:55:17 +0100
hello everyone,
Horse wrote:
By using the phrase 'change within' I am referring to that aspect of
PoV's that produces change/evolution or where this
occurs. As I see it, change is the process of producing difference,
whilst evolution is the process of becoming better (!) -
others may disagree with me on this point but it is probably a
relatively minor semantic distinction.
my point:
to me, there are no minor differences, only overlooked observations
deemed
minor by those doing the observing. this idea of betterment via
evolution is
so ingrained in everyone that most people never even question the
validity
of that a priori assumption. but if i am to start questioning MOQ, then
that
is where i would choose to start, since it seems like as good a
beginning as
anywhere.
lets start very simply...what do i see when i look around me...
i see a constantly regenerating universe of which i am not only part of,
but
of which i am constructing at a very basic level of my being. without
the
'me' that is my awareness, none of this exists relationally. the same
can be
said for all of us who are connected here to this moment thru this
relational matrix we call reality. all i see around me could be termed
'rippling evolution'.
what i call rippling evolution can be likened to a ripple in a still
pond
overlapping with many other ripples in an all-space filling interlocking
web
of awareness, which is what universe actually seems to be. our own
normal
awareness consists of perceiving and relating what we perceive in a
relational way according to what we have previously experienced. and i
only
use the term 'evolution' in order to tie together what i am talking
about to
what is being discussed here. there is no betterment involved in my
rippling
evolutionary model as it is with in MOQ or darwinian evolution.
the reason for this is, that without previous experiences to relate to,
we
have no basis of relation and so we will not recognize these
unrecognizable
events as events at all. we may know something is happening, but there
is no
agreement on just what that something is. an absolute like 'quality' in
MOQ
is supposedly a non-relational event independent and verifiable no
matter
who is observing. but that is simply not true, hence the bruhaha that
occurs
when more than one person attempts to judge quality and exactly what it
is.
we have learned to focus awareness on quality, or betterment and call it
evolution, survival of the fittest...dynamic quality in pirsig terms.
but
this is only a relational matrix we have formed within our individual
environments and life experiences. and with that relational matrix in
place,
we are then forced into judgements of 'better' and 'worse' in order to
qualify where it is we find ourselves in the first place.
there are 'surprises' which lead us as individuals to believe in the
reality
of reality. but these 'surprises' only force us into immediately
classifying
the nature of the surprise and thereby turning it into something we can
relate to. we do this so fast that its not even a part of our normal
awareness except on that occasional moment of surprise. that is another
promising avenue of exploration, but i am getting off track here.
i could say that the idea of MOQ evolution supposes that universe is
striving to be the best it can be, but that is not correct according to
my
observations. and yet that is precisely what we are assuming when we
declare
evolutionary quality to exist. i could make such a statement only if i
ignore the obvious conditions that abound around me when i walk into the
forest or down a city street, or anyplace i happen to find myself.
things
are not getting 'better' at all. things only change, and if they get
'better' then it is because i judge that they are getting better
relationally to what i already know to be.
there are many problems with the darwinian model of evolution as well.
the
geological history of earth tells us that over 90% of all species who
once
walked, swam or flew on earth are now extinct, and futhermore, there is
grow
ing evidence that many of these extinct species were superior to the
species
now alive on earth. this is an indication of an evolutionary ripple
effect
and not survival of the fittest at all.
a rippling evolutionary model begins with a concentrated momentum event
that
sets in motion the changes being wrought in the immediate locale of
space we
call earth. these events seem to originate cosmically via interaction
between earth and the space it inhabits and travels through. the changes
probably occur in what has been termed 'morphogentic fields' which
biologist
Rupert Sheldrake speculated on.
there is geological evidence of 5 major mass extinctions (and many more
smaller ones) on earth over the last several hundred million years. and
after each extinction, there seems to be a proliferation of new species
seemingly out of nowhere in very short order. there is no gradual
development from a lower life form to a higher one, but rather there
seems
to be a spurt followed by a sputter, then another spurt and a sputter as
the
ripples of cosmic interruption break over earth in periodic intervals.
this is why the search for the missing link between modern human and
proto-human has yet to be found, even though periodically some
over-zealous
researcher will declare that the missing link has indeed been found,
only to
recant after futher research has been done. there is no missing link.
the jump from proto-human to modern human probably occured spontaneously
in
an evolutionary ripple effect from a direct result of some type of
cosmic
interaction with planet earth.
this spontaneously reactionary rippling evolutionary event probably took
place in a small group of proto-humans who happened to have lived on an
advantageously situated locale on the surface of earth.
it was not a betterment, however. this rippling evolutionary change was
a
difference, thats all.
more is not better. smarter is not better. bigger is not better. all
these
differences are merely that, differences. when we begin to see the way
universe operates, this becomes clear. (please notice i did not say when
we
begin to understand universe, because it is my opinion that we will
never
understand universe.)
from what i have read so far, MOQ is an attempt at absolution and
universe
does not allow absolutes, this much seems to be clear, to me anyway.
pirsig
himself must be aware of this, yet there seems to be no way to reconcile
this paradox other than hoping it will not be noticed.
someone here said (or words to this effect) that physics allows many
absolutes and so referring to MOQ as an absolute is no big deal. i
differ in
this opinion. it is a very big deal.
i am not really qualified to speak as a physicist, but i have done some
reading in this field and it seems clear that the reason constants, or
absolutes are used in physics is because they HAVE to be used in order
to
get value out of equations...we apparently need them to make meaning out
of
universe. but the fact absolutes and constants are used does not mean
they
exist.
as i have said before, it is in examining these seemingly
inconsequential
and minor differences that lead to furthering our awareness of where it
is
we happen to find ourselves at this particular moment in time. we cannot
overlook them, for they are examples of precessionary universe in
action.
thank you for allowing me to address them.
well, i hope someone can make sense of this and if so, please share any
thoughts that may arise.
glove
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:21 CEST