To all in the thread, but mainly in form of a reply to Platt (whose "trumpets"
have waked me from my working mode)...
> To call anyone who disagrees with Gould's view of evolution *naive* seems
> arrogant to me and others who are open to the idea of
> evolutionary progress.
Let's get rid of this before I go on. *I* used the word naive, and it was not me
who called Gould into play. My point was just that to imagine all life as a
pyramid with Man at its peak, and whose history was aimed towards the creation
of man, is naive. Probably "naive" is not the right word, but in the end I could
rephrase saying that it is a position that is so incredibly far from anything I
would call "reasonable" that I don't even think it needs any argument to be
discarded. Of course we might have different opinions on this. (BTW, calling
"paranoic" those who agree on Gould is not less arrogant).
> Fred Hoyle calculated that the odds of natural selection producing even an
> enzyme is on the order of a tornado roaring through a junkyard of airplane
> parts and coming up with a Boeing 747.
I think Fred Hoyle surely attached some context to this. You don't think this is
actually a "calculation" that can be carried on in such a way as to be
undebatable and self-evident. If you just meant to point at someone that does
not share Gould's opinion, that's fair. On the other hand, Hoyle's quotation (as
you report it) seems to suggest faith in some external "force" that drove
evolution just like you would need an external force to drive a roulette if you
want to have 100 0s in a row (which is not your position, as I understand).
*This* point of view on evolution is definitely less widely agreed upon than
Gould's (at least, because many who would have the forma mentis required to
accept this idea are creationists and not evolutionists to begin with).
Given this, I think you missed the point of the previous posts in this thread.
What is argued is *not* if a horseshoe crab (or a beetle) is of higher quality
than man. The problem I raised is that biological evolution, for what science
tells us, seems to work "in survival terms alone", unless you believe in an
external force driving it. It is also a perfectly reasonable view. The MOQ, too,
is generally consistent with science and this consistency is one of the reasons
many of those who inhabit this forum like it (including yours truly). So my
problem was mainly if we should rectify what is probably a common view:
evolution modifies life towards greater quality, with man at its peak.
Saying that evolution is DQ at work does not mean, per se, that evolution is a
*linear* process of progressing in *one definite direction*. Evolution takes
place in a context (environment) and it is definitely about fitting the
environment; at the biological level, DQ seems to come into play in the sense
that it is a "wind of constant change" in virtue of which biological life is
able to try alternatives. I.e., in my opinion DQ should not be equated with the
*outcomes* of mutation (new genetic traits) but rather with the *fact of trying
out* new solutions. And the same also holds for the other levels.
This overall problem seems to lead to equate survival with quality (it may
happen or not). I think this is a trap that you risk to fall in if, after
reading Pirsig's objections to "subjective" quality, you make the (subconscious)
mistake of looking for "objective" quality. If we are asked if is it moral for
the scientist to kill the virus, and try to answer "YES" just like that, without
asking "according to whom?", you have an implicit idea of objective quality. But
ZAMM clearly stated that quality isn't objective, is it?
So why Pirsig seems to fall back onto objective quality? IMO, because all the
four levels of the MOQ are enclosed in a big "AS IF" (or several as ifs). I'm
trying to understand exactly what kind of restrictive assumption is at play in
this objectivization of quality. (Perhaps "expert" posters know it all; please
help). Which assumptions? Assuming you are human?
Let's turn the scientist vs virus question upside down: if an extraterrestrial
super-race decided to kill us for higher-level perfectly moral reason, wouldn't
it be perfectly moral for us to fight the super-race and destroy it?
Just guessing. Wish I had more time these days.
-- Andrea Sosio RIM/PSPM/PPITMN Tel. (8)9006 mailto: Andrea.Sosio@italtel.itMOQ.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