RE: MD What comes first?

From: Paul Turner (paulj.turner@ntlworld.com)
Date: Mon Sep 01 2003 - 10:59:38 BST

  • Next message: Paul Turner: "RE: MD Where things end."

    Hi David

    Paul continued:
    So if we accept "a migration of static patterns toward Dynamic Quality"
    as a
    viable description of "evolution" then this Pirsig statement...
    "...the universe is evolving from a condition of low quality (quantum
    forces only, no atoms, pre-big bang) toward a higher one (birds, trees,
    societies and thoughts) and in a static sense (world of everyday
    affairs) these two are not the same." [Pirsig cited in Ant McWatt's The
    Role of Evolution, Time and Order in Pirsig's "Metaphysics of Quality"]
    ...provides you with an empirically sound assumption for a viable system
    of evolutionary morality based on an analogy of Quality rather than of
    fixed Truth.

    dmb says:
    Based on an analogy of Quality rather than fixed truth? You lost me
    there. I
    understand that evolution is a migration from low to high and that
    quantum
    forces are not the same as birds, but then you lost me.

    Paul:
    Fair enough, this needs more explanation. A quick answer (which I'll try
    and expand upon later) is that perhaps evolutionary morality can be
    understood as favouring the pattern with the least limited scale of
    preference in a given situation rather than trying to find the pattern
    which has been "proven" to be more evolved by corresponding to a linear
    timeline of history which claims objective truth over all other
    theories.

    The problem with looking for such an objective timeline is that there
    are so many on offer. Even radiometric dating produces different
    "objective measurements" of the earth's age depending on who measures
    and where.

    What I'm suggesting is that by focussing observation on value and its
    manifestations (from quantum probability all the way through to
    economics to metaphysics etc.), it may be possible, in principle, to
    "measure" evolution in an entirely novel, yet more empirical way. This
    then avoids the evolutionary argument over "which came first?" by
    shifting the question to "which is more Dynamic?"

    Anyway, just a thought really, a purely hypothetical illustration of how
    seeing the world as value instead of substance might change basic
    premises of arguments.

    Cheers

    Paul

    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 : Mon Sep 01 2003 - 11:02:17 BST