From: ian glendinning (psybertron@gmail.com)
Date: Wed Jul 27 2005 - 02:19:57 BST
Paul,
You said
"The point .... was to try and expose a false dilemma between two
extreme positions (purely individual vs purely collective) which I
didn't think anyone, or at least the MOQ, held."
If by my agreeing with Mark on the general "popular" ignorance of
neo-Darwinism I contributed to your being "pissed" then I apologise,
because I completely agree with your point, one I also keep trying to
make.
You were clearly never included in my generality of "ignorance".
Ian
On 7/26/05, Paul Turner <paul@turnerbc.co.uk> wrote:
> Mark,
>
> >I'd like to inject a thought here, not directed at anyone in
> >particular.
>
> Paul: If you really want to do this, you shouldn't quote anyone in
> particular.
>
> >someone said:
> >The MOQ sees intellect, like everything else static, as a product,
> >and ongoing process of, evolution. Evolutionary advances occur on
> >what has gone before. Dynamic advances happen individually but
> >static latching requires patterns to spread out amongst others if the
> >advancement is to be maintained. Both processes are needed.
> >
> >msh 7-25-05:
> >I see no reason to believe that dynamic advances happen individually.
> > Newton and Liebniz "invented" calculus simultaneously. Who knows
> >how many others, fiddling with the notion of limits, might have
> >worked it out for themselves. Darwin and Wallace arrived at the
> >theory of evolution at the same time.
>
> Paul: But you accept that Newton, Liebniz, Darwin, Wallace and "who knows
> how many others" are, nevertheless, in one sense, individuals, right? That
> is all I'm saying. However, see below.
>
> >To me, it makes no more sense to say that one "genius" came up with a
> >unique idea than to say that one fish was the first to drag himself
> >onto land and develop lungs. A belief in such nonsense requires a
> >tremendous ignorance about the the way evolution (whether biological
> >or cultural) occurs.
>
> Paul: The "someone" you quoted was me. I've managed to have my views
> dismissed as nonsense by both sides of the argument here, which would be
> funny if it wasn't so annoying.
>
> What's really starting to bring me down around here is that it seems any
> statement can be cut from any post and removed from the context and general
> position of the person who made the statement. It's like the worst kind of
> journalism. If, Mark, you had read a little of what I have written about
> evolution, recently or over the years, you would see that I am pretty much
> saying the same thing as you (I copy a post as an example below). The point
> of the statement above was to try and expose a false dilemma between two
> extreme positions (purely individual vs purely collective) which I didn't
> think anyone, or at least the MOQ, held. So I'm getting a little pissed at
> words like "tremendous ignorance" being tossed around too easily round here.
> Now, I'll try and be a little clearer and try to assume that my position is
> not familiar to people but it would be good if, when you quote a post, you
> actually bother to find out and inform the list who wrote it. At least this
> may help someone else find out about the position of the person who wrote it
> and stop a bit of hip-shooting.
>
> Regards
>
> Paul
>
> Paul to Platt 5th Aug 2004
>
> "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."
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
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 : Wed Jul 27 2005 - 02:25:23 BST