Hi Lawry,
LAWRY:
Let us not forget the more probable possibility that we humans simply
attribute 'goodness' and 'progress' to those things that we seem to have,
more than other species. This satisfies the collective ego. Then we turn
around and assess other species, and - voila!-we turn out to be the superior
ones, by objective proof.
Rog:
I am fine with your take on purpose, and certainly agree that ego could
easily lead us astray. I also agree that it would be very difficult to argue
the quality of different species in different nitches. I am not convinced
though that this necessarily applies to the term "progress." Certainly, if
"progress" is defined as evolution to man or to perfection or to quality,
then it serves no purpose other than ego.
However, I argue that progress has clear and objective (verifiable), though
complex, characteristics and outcomes. I suggest that we can compare how
"progressive" a complex adaptive system is. I am not saying that progress is
inevitable or even likely, but I would suggest that it is possible and that
we can define it.
For example, the economy of S Korea has been objectively more progressive
than that of N Korea for the past 50 years. Science is more progressive than
authoritarian dogma. Sexual reproduction in multi-cellular organisms is more
progressive than asexual, etc. Thoughts?
Rog
PS -- And no, progress isn't teleological either.
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 : Fri Oct 25 2002 - 16:06:16 BST