Re: MD What comes first?

From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Mon Sep 01 2003 - 18:47:31 BST

  • Next message: David MOREY: "Re: MD Where things end."

    Hi

    Sounds good to me, value dynamic quality above all
    and value static quality for its capacity to raise the quality and level for
    the appearance of dynamic quality, like this web site -lots of dynamic
    quality.

    DM
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Paul Turner" <paulj.turner@ntlworld.com>
    To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 10:59 AM
    Subject: RE: MD What comes first?

    >
    > 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
    >
    >

    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 - 18:50:53 BST