To: Matt and Andrea
From: Rog
I would like to comment on a couple of specific issues in the evolution
discussion. I have been making similar complaints for years in this and the
other forum on Pirsig's naive interpretation of evolutionary advancement. To
start off, I would like to give some input on the *pattern survivability*
issue.
To quote Richard Dawkins, we can sort patterns into two rough types...
"we seem to have two kinds of 'existenceworthiness,' the dewdrop kind, which
can be summed up as 'likely to come into existence but not very durable,' and
the rock kind, which can be summed up as 'not very likely to come into
existence but likely to last a long time once there.' Rocks have durability
and dewdrops have 'generatability.'"
What Dawkins (and I) would point out is that when you are speaking of
'pattern' you are talking about some type of consistent arrangement of things
or experiences or events or what have you. Therefore, you, almost by
definition, have some type of stability (durability) or frequency
(generatability) to have paterns. Dawkins goes on to say that life "gets the
best of both worlds". The durability of life comes from its ability to form
a sustainable feedback loop within its particular environment, and its
generatability comes from its ability to replicate.
Now, to further complicate things, the value of a complex feedback loop such
as life is in its ability to retain its overall circularity within the
environment, not necessarily on its ability to avoid change altogether. Life
is the process of adapting how it couples with its environment, but of not
losing its ability to couple with the environment. In brief, the pattern of
life is to maintain patterness even through the act of changing its
particular pattern. Or in the words of biologist Gregory Bateson:
"Adaptation is change in the service of nonchange."
A living system adapts or changes in order to persist.
With that as a backdrop, let me dive into Matt and Andrea's discussion
MATT:
....It comes down
partially as to where "survival" fits into the picture of the MoQ. Either
"ability to survive" is parallel to value (bleh!) or "quality = ability to
survive". Neither quite seems right to me. In my last post I mentioned
"Survival ... has been a useful pattern" and "Survival is a static latch".
Neither of those seem right either. I wrote them so I wouldn't get stuck and
never send the post. But looking back, I cringe.
ROG:
I would offer that to convert the issue of life and evolution into 'MOQspeak'
that we replace 'organism' or 'species' with 'biological pattern of value.'
Then, to get to the issue at hand, survivability (aka Dawkin's 'durability')
or generatability (the pace of reproductive success) and versatility (the
ability to adapt at the organism or species level) are all static measures of
quality.
To summarize:
Biological patterns of value have the Qualities of durability, adaptability
and reproducibility. However, their adaptability and reproducibility LEAD to
their durability. Their durability LEADS (like a static latch) to
adaptability and reproducibility... and so forth.
MATT (to Andrea):
The only thing I disagree with,
and it might not matter, is your saying that we project the four levels onto
the subject/object. I think it is the other way around. We sometimes still
use "S-O speak" to talk about, well, whatever it is we're talkin' about. I
don't know what to say about that right now, but....
ROG:
See prior discussions between Elephant and me vs Marco and others on this
topic. The MOQ states that patterns (s and o's) are derived from pure
experience. We project the s/o on experience, not on pre-existing patterns.
However, this is a huge thread on its own, and one which is very frustrating
to those not familiar with radical empiricism or similar 'mystic'
philosophical positions.
MATT:
I think we can get at the placement of survival without entering into a
horribly cyclical discussion like the above one. Survival, to me, is an
outdated concept. Any of the above placements of it ("parallel to value",
"equated to quality", "static pattern", "static latch") are all ugly. They
don't quite seem right and they don't quite work. I think it's because
"static
pattern of value" has survival inherently stuck into it. Stuck into the
"static" part.
ROG:
Actually, I would argue that life and complex patterns are inherently
circular. My answer to your dilemma though is that we need to see the
inherent non-staticness of survivability in life. Its durability or
survivability comes -- at least partially -- from its adaptability.
Organisms adapt and reproduce, and species evolve.
MATT:
Well, here's my vague dimmness: I have a feeling survival is outdated as a
concept because of the 4 levels as a whole. When we apply survival to the
Bio-level it looks great. When we apply it to the Social-level it looks
pretty
good, too. When we apply it to the Int-level it looks nasty and when we apply
it to the Inorg-level it looks silly. Richard Dawkins wrote of memes as the
self-perpetuating part of the idea (as gene is to bio). I've also noticed the
memes have been talked of extensively here. Personally, I don't like memes.
They are cold and don't quite sound right. More of an analogy. And not a
very
good one.
ROG
Memes are definitely an analogy, though I find them useful in that they
basically translate in MOQspeak out to 'social or intellectual patterns of
value'. Reading about memes (if you avoid the wackos on the topic) therefore
allows us to learn more about various rigorous analysis about these two
levels. The obvious differences are the vast superiority in generatability,
adaptability, transmitability and versatility of memes over genes. Again in
MOQspeak, they are more dynamic and more moral.
MATT:
When survival is applied to the Inorganic level, it looks silly 'cuz how could
"not alive" stuff die? That's a naive, though. We can twist survival around
make it look like "the perpertuation of stable patterns". That's what Dawkins
did. But that doesn't sound right either. I haven't fully explored these
possibilities yet, though.
I think my discomfort with survival comes because I don't think we need it in
the MoQ. My vague notion is that it is replaced by "The migration of static
patterns of quality toward Dynamic Quality." That's why the interpretation
changes. Because survival is thrown out. Kinda' like how "cause" was thrown
out for "values precondition".
ROG:
I hope I have contributed to this topic with the above. Let me know your
thoughts and I look forward to your Forum article (I am writing a book called
*Positive Sum Quality* that includes evolution of biology, society and ideas
as a major topic, and am extremely open to criticism.)
The next issue to address is *evolution's arrow*, but that better be a
different post.
Rog
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
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 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:21 BST