I know that this Creationism thread is starting to die
off, but I have been left with a feeling of
disappointment with how I have relayed my ideas to
others. So I decided to write this in hopes of
explaining myself a little better to others in this
forum, please let me know if you what you think.
I've been trying to look at this whole "does evolution
has a purpose?" from a completely MOQ perspective.
>From my understanding of the MOQ, everything in the
universe has a purpose. If you take Pirsig's
four-level interpretation of latched reality to be
true, then you see that everything in this universe is
evolving towards Quality. That is the whole point in
establishing a hierarchy of the four levels of static
quality. That is why the biological level is above
the inorganic, the social above the biological, the
intellectual above the social, and the Dynamic above
the static. The five moral codes that Pirsig
establishes is to show how static patterns are
evolving to a state better than the one before.
This “better” means to have more Quality, and in order
for that to happen, a maximum amount of Dynamic
Quality has to be allowed without destroying the
existing static patterns. So if everything is
evolving towards Quality, that means (to me) that the
purpose of everything is Quality. Now, I thought
that this was a fundamental belief in truly
understanding the MOQ. I have now questioned this
idea because others seem to disagree that this is
necessary in understanding the MOQ. I say this
because others do not seem to make a connection that I
believe is necessary if you hold this belief (that
everything is evolving towards Quality) to be true.
The connection I made was that if everything is
evolving towards Quality, than the goal of evolution,
including biological evolution, is Quality. This is a
tremendous factor (but not the only factor) in why I
hold the idea of evolution having a purpose to be
true. But the purpose is most definitely not a
conventional one because it is Quality. Quality has
not existed in the common scientific community so of
course no one has ever been able to come up with a
goal for evolution. It makes me wonder why people
have been quoting various scientific minds in order to
provide support for the idea that evolution has no
purpose, because these various scientific minds have
never had the MOQ as a tool. I can understand how SOM
thinking cannot derive a purpose from evolution,
because there is no Quality in SOM. But we privileged
few do have the MOQ in our tool belts, and I thought
that with it, everyone here would be able to expand
their idea of a purpose to include Quality. I
understand that a person still within the SOM mind
frame might reject the expansion of the definition of
purpose to include Quality, so maybe we should do what
many MOQists have done to other terms, and change it
to something like “q-purpose” or something. Maybe be
evolution isn’t teleological, but maybe its
“q-teleological”. Or maybe not, I don’t think that we
should have to make up new words, I always thought the
MOQ taught us to keep things like language fluid and
dynamic. But back to the point. Basically, I don’t
understand how a MOQist can believe that the goal of
everything is Quality, yet not believe that the goal
of biological evolution is Quality. Now, I am fully
open to the idea that I may have made a mistake in my
reasoning, but I’m hoping that I haven’t. But for
now, it’s late and I have to give this up for the
moment. Any comments would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Adam
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
http://health.yahoo.com
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 - 16:06:17 BST