From: Kevin (kevin@xap.com)
Date: Tue Dec 10 2002 - 18:44:46 GMT
Rudy said:
As to evolution, this is where Pirsig gives me the
creeps. In making social judgments, Pirsig talks
about what is "higher" in evolution. That is where
the subjectivity sneaks in, where the scientists and philosophers would
get tossed out by the politicians and charlatans. How do we objectively
determine what is "higher" in evolutionary terms? Is something
developed later in time always better? Or is complexity the thing? Are
the more complex things necessarily better? I agree that biological
evolution generally tends over long time frames toward forms of life
that are more adaptable, more conscious, more sentient, more
intelligent, etc. Also, these life forms are usually more complex than
forms evolved earlier in time. But when you take a million year paradigm
and try to make social decisions based on trends evolving over hundreds
or tens or single digit years, it may not work as reliably. On that
time scale, even biological evolution has many dead ends, i.e. many
species that evolve later and with more complexity that just don't work
out in the ten or
hundred thousand year time frame.
Glenn said (and might be joking):
"Is something developed later in time always better? Yes
"Or is complexity the thing?" Yes
"Are the more complex things necessarily better?" Yes
Kevin:
Herein lies my greatest apprehension about a formal, systematic
metaphysics based on LILA. At least as it is interpreted by many
MOQ'ers. It came up once before in a discussion with Platt where it was
stated unequivocally that what comes later (temporally) is better
because DQ always moves towards "Good".
Like Rudy, I also cannot fathom how this "betterness" or "goodness"
isn't just subjective coloring of circumstances to support a specific
frame of reference. It's POV-centric.
Is dinosaur extinction really 'better'? (perhaps for ExxonMobil..)
Of course there are the countless atrocities and injustices of human
history, no need to rehash them all, but to seriously suggest that
history is some kind of purposeful march towards "betterness" begs the
question. What would a Native American have to say on the subject? Or
Tibetans? Colonial Africa?
I'm sure some on this list would be very reluctant to accept the notion
that the 10 commandments are bog fodder simply because they are
centuries old. Every new idea is better than the previous one as long as
it successfully latches, correct?
The idea that evolution moves inevitably towards the Good strikes me as
some kind of Manifest Destiny for Philosophy, to be honest.
I'm reminded of the classic Chinese proverb regarding good luck and bad
luck. It follows:
There once was a farmer in China who had an ox. One day the ox ran away.
All his neighbors came to console him, but he was not distressed. He
told them, "Good luck, bad luck, who knows?" A few days later the ox
returned and with it was a horse. All his neighbors came to him to
congratulate him on his good fortune, but again he would not mind them
telling them, "Good luck, bad luck, who knows?" A week later his son was
riding the horse, fell and broke his arm. Again the neighbors came to
wish him condolences and tell him how very unlucky he was. The farmer
shook his head and said, "Good luck, bad luck, who knows?" A few days
later, war was declared and all able-bodied young men were conscripted,
but because on his son's broken arm, he was not. "Good luck, bad luck,
who knows?"
The quality of the luck is a subjective projection based on POV. None of
these events are inherently good or bad, they just are. Applying good or
bad is simply an exercise in coping skills--An attempt to assign either
benevolence or malice to the universe for the sake of our own interests.
Will the Earth skip the next regularly scheduled ice age because DQ
wants to preserve human society?
With doubts,
Kevin
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 2.1.5 : Tue Dec 10 2002 - 18:46:32 GMT