To: Andrea, Matt and others
From: Rog
Amazing post Andrea!!! I am very drawn to its quality. Below are my
comments and suggestions.
ANDREA:
Even if you argue that beetles have changed very little in the
last billion years with respect to us, from an evolutionary point of view
that is
a *good* thing about them; they changed very little because they were closer
to
the perfect fit in their environment
ROG:
I am still wrestling with something here. I agree that beetles are well
adapted to their environment, though I would say the sheer volume of separate
species of beetle points to a certain versatility of the species to adapt.
According to the terminology I was using in my prior post, beetle evolution
has been very lateral.
ANDREA:
I think that biological evolution, and especially the myth of evolution as a
"progress towards man", may have had bad influence on MOQ (but I am mostly
wondring aloud to see if anyone has quotations or ideas handy). If evolution
is
DQ, and evolution is aimed at "fitting the environment" (in the sense of being
able to survive and persistent, as a race), it seems that biological quality
is
about fitting the environment too.
ROG:
I concur that the myth of evolution to man has colored Pirsig's views. He
shoulda known better. Biologically, man is not more evolved than an amoeba.
He is more complexly evolved, he does represent a higher form of biological
organization, he is more dynamic, and he probably experiences a wider range
of reality. But he is not more evolved.
Where I would push back on your above view is to equate DQ with static
survival of patterns of value.
ANDREA:
By the way, saying things like, (biological)
evolution eventually progressed enough to become able to support intellect,
etc.,
we are implicitly affected by the myth of man as the peak of evolution.
Actually,
there is no evidence that intellect was such a great achievement for
evolution.
Surely intellect required a high level of complexity, that took long time to
be
there. But still, intellect looks more like one of several promising
alternatives
for longterm survival (another alternative being, for example, extremely
simple,
quickly reproducing beings such as those mentioned above).
ROG:
I basically agree. This is only true if someone chooses to equate
evolutionary 'progression' with enhanced complexity and organization. As I
wrote in my first post today though, there is no inherent direction in
evolution other than those arrows that we draw ourselves. One direction that
is statistically possible in large populations of species is toward enhanced
complexity. I would argue that the incredible versatility and dynamicness of
intelligence gives it the potential to be a great biological trick for
survival. Intelligence is one of the few biological qualities with the
potential to escape the inevitable life span of our solar system.
ANDREA:
Also, one thing that biological static patterns teach us is that evolution of
static patterns is based on persistence of static patterns. Our sense of
quality
might think that a Panda bear is "better" than an amoeba, yet amoebas are more
likely to be here to stay. So in a linear view of evolution, with amoebas at
the
left end and Panda bears at the right end, the Panda bear is actually a
suicide
of evolving life, a failure.
ROG:
I agree wholeheartedly with your lateral view of evolution. Where I would
add commentary is that both your panda and your amoeba species are prone to
evolution (though admittedly the pace could differ). Either branch could
lead to extinction or to prolific new species. I would think you are correct
that amoebas are probably the best adapted overall. This certainly doesn't
make them the most moral according to the MOQ of course.
ANDREA:
Now another point is: can it really be different for
social and intellectual patterns? What about a "bad" society that finds the
means
to protect itself into endless survival (eg., 1984 by G. Orwell). Do you
think it
really is inherently impossible? (Don't be influenced by the fall of prior
"bad"
societies... is it *inherently* impossible for a bad society to perpetuate
itself)? Don't society progress much more towards the one that is more likely
to
perpetuate itself than to the "better" in any other sense?
ROG:
In my post on earlier today on evolution's direction, I argue that even if
there is no inherent direction of societies toward higher quality forms of
synergistic organization, that in a sufficiently large population of
societies that some of them will 'advance'. Others, to your point, will not.
Further, if these societies are allowed to compete and interact, then the
higher quality will win out. This was actually the point I tried to make in
my * Das Capital and The Home Shopping Club* post last weekend (which got no
feedback.) There is a book out there by Jared Diamond called "Guns, Germs
and Steel." where he convincingly argues this very point. As an alternative,
read "Non Zero" by Robert Wright
ANDREA (to Matt in a later post):
My concern is that we have two different concepts: the "goals" of a
level (what the level seeks) and the actual "evolution" of a level's
static patterns (what does it come to achieve, over time). Whether "what
one seeks = what one achieves" is not obvious, depending on context; so
my intent is that of investigating if goals and actual evolution are
necessarily coherent at the various levels. [snip]....
...Evolution (change) of
static patterns involves patterns transforming into other patterns and
so on "ad libitum". New patterns build on previous ones. When a new
pattern is created, it provides a basis for new patterns to develop.
Biological evolution shows that (at that level), the actual trend is
necessarily determined by whether a certain pattern is able to
perpetuate itself. You may thus consider the goal of the biological
level as equal to the "direction" (or limit) of its evolution, it seems,
only if you equate the goal of the biological level as survival (of a
race). An alternative is if you think that "higher quality" for the
biological level is supporting intellect. Seeing things in *this*
perspective, I am somewhat unsatisfied with the resulting "chauvinist"
antropocentrism of the metaphysics.
ROG:
You are losing me here in the first two sentences. You are mixing levels and
evolution and species and goals and directions to the point where I can't
follow you any more. Sorry. Please clarify.
My only comment is that the biological level pertains to the ability (or
inability) of biological patterns to survive, evolve and replicate. But as I
mentioned in my first post, pattern survival does not necessarily equate to
pattern staticness. In other words, organisms' ability to adapt and species'
abilities to evolve are major important characteristics of their very
durability.
As to 'higher quality', I agree that ability to support or sustain higher
levels is not a sufficient measure of quality at the underlying level (though
low quality at lower levels does jeopardize higher levels). Men are not
biologically superior to germs. However, they are biologically more complex,
versatile and dynamic. Society and intellect arises out of these complex and
dynamic qualities.
ANDREA:
I also find some discomfort in the consideration that even at the other
levels, new patterns build on previous ones, so that the ability of a
pattern to perpetuate itself (or to be persistent) is again relevant to
the overall evolution of the level. So either you think of this "ability
to survive" as a parallel feature of patterns that coexist with their
main feature (value), which makes my hair stand, or you equate "higher
quality" to "higher ability to survive" for *all* the levels.
(So it seems, to me).
ROG:
I don't understand your dilemma. I think I am just missing something though.
What is the 'main feature' of a pattern?
ANDREA:
A problem with all of the above is that, to me, it is a picture of very
low quality. I don't like it at all. I think there's something wrong in
the very first assumptions.
[snip]
...The reasoning above is wrong because it looks at biological patterns
"from above", i.e., as "objects", never as "subjects" (nor something
that is both and none of these). In fact, any statement about the goals
of a level (what is Quality for that level) is suspect because *we are
part of that level* and, according to Pirsig's view, we should not be
able to spell out exactly what Quality is for that level.
So, to me, the whole problem is about where are we projecting the four
levels. My position is that, due to our long-term affair with SOM, we
often tend to project the four levels onto the world of objects. In
other occasions, we might be projecting them onto the subject
(ourselves).
For example Pirsig once mentions smoking as an example of
biological quality (because it feels good). This is an example of a
level projected onto the subject; if you project the same level onto the
object, it is actually good to *quit* smoking. All levels make as much
sense when projected to the subject as they do when projected to the
object: biological quality for the subject - feeling good; social
quality - feeling you have mix-appeal, sex-appeal; intellectual quality
- feeling you are understanding something new. I suspect that this
"projection" of the levels is less popular or less readily available to
MD posters' minds; no one for example argued that the goal of the
biological level is "to feel good". Many seemed to agree on "to survive"
as a goal, which is actually what you have in the "object-projection" of
the biological level and its goal.
The truth should be none of these views, i.e., we should not object- nor
subject-project the levels to make justice to them.
I'm not sure where do we go from here, or if anyone has followed. Any
idea, comment, attack is most welcome.
ROG:
Wow!!! Complicated chain of reasoning, but I think you are essentially
touching upon some important issues. In the MOQ, DQ is pure experience prior
to division into subjects and objects. Patterns of value, which can be
sorted into a hierarchy of levels, are derived from DQ -- the cutting edge of
reality. You point out that those experiences that we later objectify (or
subjectify) are quality. I agree completely.
I suggest that this leads to the conclusion that if reality is direct
experience, then higher quality involves more experience and more variety of
experience, and more versatility in experience. However, some potential
experiences are indeed so complex that they require extremely intricate
patterns of underlying 'experiences' to work. Truth seeking, for example
requires the complexity of a structured universe, with complex highly
organized and versatile living processes engaged in complicated and
sustainable social interactions. (I know I reverted back to objectifying
everything, but I just can't find any other way to say it!!!)
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