ROG TO P.E. WITH PS TO MARCO and JoVo
> BTW, one additional moral concern that you should know is that the MOQ
> explains that men are more evolved than animals, which are more evolved than
> plants. Biologically speaking, this is not correct in modern evolutionary
> theory. Every species alive today is considered equally evolved. The MOQ is
> using nontraditional definitions of "evolved." I don't see a problem with
> this if it is clearly recognized and explained.
ELEPHANT:
You're definitely right about modern evolutionary theory, and it's more or
less the 'Ronald Regan' point I made earlier. Well, while I go back and
read some more Prisig, could you perhaps say just a bit more (for the
puzzled) to clearly explain how the MOQ's non-traditional concept of
'evolved' differs from both modern (non-evaluative) evolutionary theory and
the 'survival of the fittest' travesty of biology, and in what sense it
remains a notion of evolution? Is it best to think of our difference from
plants in terms of Evolution, or standing towards Quality?
ROG:
In standard evolutionary theory, everything alive today is considered as
evolved from its common original ancestor.. Men are not viewed as more
evolved than apes. For example, both chimps and men are viewed as equally
evolved from their common proto-chimp/man ancestor.
In the MOQ, Pirsig evaluates evolutionary advancement by the freedom and
versatility of a species to not be controlled by static patterns. Pirsig
equates biological patterns with more complexity and versatility as more
moral than those with less complexity and versatility.
The point is that though some patterns evolve toward more versatility and
complexity, not all do. There is nothing inherently wrong with the MOQ's
version of evolution, but it requires explaining.
BTW, why are you so set against Darwinian theory? Why is it a travesty? Is
it because it is a bad idea? Or because it is a good idea about a
discomforting situation? Or is it because it gets applied inappropriately?
(ie the vapid travesty of Social Darwinism.)
Rog
PS -- Marco, any feedback on my intellectual/social split? Your critique
would be valued.
PPS -- JoVo -- I still owe you several responses. It is just that they are
complex issues and take time....as for your definition of memes, I would
clarify that they don't have to be successful, they can also be unsuccessful
patterns, and they can be transmitted to anybody, not just your children.
Aristotle's memes are still being transmitted. And they don't have to be
stored in "people" they can be stored in computers, web sites, books,
physical models, records,etc. I would simplify what you wrote as "memes are
patterns of behaviour or thinking that can be transmitted to another person."
For more about memes, surf the net for Blackmore's stuff. It is easy to find
and devoid of the rampant pseudoscience.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:51 BST