From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Thu Aug 05 2004 - 20:10:52 BST
Hi Paul,
I get the message. I appreciate it. And, I reciprocate "thanks for the
dialogue." I would like to simply add that in speaking of individuals in
the context of a suggested Individual Level, I presumed it was understood
that I was referring to human individuals, not simply to any and all
"distinct entities." To the extent I failed to make that clear, I
apologize.
Best, Platt
You wrote:
> In the last post I questioned the role of individuals in the process of
> evolution and, in particular, the notion that individuals cause evolution
> and this needs a little more explanation. I haven't the time to give this
> the amount of clarity I would like, but I wanted to add a little more to it
> here by way of summary and perhaps conclusion.
>
> We may speak of a "step" in evolution. By this we may mean when latching of
> new patterns occurs sufficiently to maintain that pattern's existence with
> some stability. Just how the completion of this step can be precisely
> defined is debatable but not at issue here. When such a step is noticed we
> may look to find the first instance of this new pattern and suggest that
> this is where and when the "evolution" first occurred/began and may even
> confuse this with the cause of evolution. Because the length of time from a
> new pattern emerging to the completion of such an evolutionary step is
> evidently shorter as we go up the levels, when it comes to intellect it is
> easier to determine a time and a place, and a person, with which to
> associate this evolutionary step. When a step takes decades, centuries, or
> millennia, as can happen with social, biological and inorganic advances it
> becomes harder to identify such an origin and so we may look more to a
> combination of factors which brought about evolution rather than an
> individual.
>
> What I am highlighting is that it is, to some degree, always a
> combination of factors which brings about evolution, even when we
> "pinpoint" an individual. For example, Pirsig wasn't born with the MOQ.
> Before he arrived at the theory, as an infant he learned which things to
> notice, he learned the English language, he gained an education, trained as
> a biochemist, studied Indian philosophy, experienced Native American
> mysticism with Dusenberry, taught freshman composition etc. All of these
> things, along with Dynamic Quality, shaped the MOQ. You can take any one of
> these things and trace its evolution back to a time when the individual
> called Robert Pirsig didn't exist, before the social pattern of the US
> existed, before the English language existed - all the way back. In this
> long, long view of things, I think you can see how it makes sense to view
> patterns as, in an important sense, independent of *particular*
> individuals.
>
> On the other hand (and I have not denied this throughout the dialogue),
> without society, and biology, and matter, there are no intellectual
> patterns. And you and I agree that all of these levels of patterns compose
> individuals who live and die, and who, whilst living, are an evolutionary
> relationship between Dynamic and static quality. It may be that the meaning
> of death can be broadened to refer to the loss of the ability to respond to
> Dynamic Quality. I don't know.
>
> But, finally, I really think it is important for you to appreciate that the
> individual is not containing the patterns. A glass contains water, when you
> pour out the water, the glass remains. If you "pour out" the patterns of an
> individual human, only Dynamic Quality remains, which doesn't contain
> anything. It is a slip back into SOM to begin with the existence of an
> individual who *has* experiences and therefore *has* patterns. It is also
> important to see that the patterns which compose an individual are changing
> and in a relationship with other patterns with boundaries that are also
> changing and so, as there is nothing fixed containing the patterns, an
> individual, as with everything, has permanence only by postulation.
>
> Anyway, once again, thanks for the dialogue.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 : Thu Aug 05 2004 - 22:30:39 BST