From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Mon Sep 15 2003 - 16:08:16 BST
Ian, and all interested parties.
14 Sep. you wrote:
> Sorry if this is all cleared-up but I've been away from the forum on
> holiday for almost 2 weeks and have just been catching up today. I saw
> a long debate on the rights and wrongs of Darwinism in there somwhere.
> Surely the facts of Darwinism are clear, whatever groundwork others
> did before Darwin, and however much others have extended its
> understanding since.
All cleared-up! Sure, haven't you read LILA? But speaking of evolution
vs creation. When this discussion was young we spent a lot of time
talking about the inorganic level because the current cosmological
theory - the Big Bang - is just as controversial as Darwin's is on life,
and the MOQ solution the same (even if Pirsig doesn't treat that
issue) as the one below on biology.
................ LILA (Chapter 11 page 148) ................
"Survival of the fittest" is meaningful only when "fittest" is equated with
"best," which is to say,"Quality." And the Darwinians don't mean just
any old quality, they mean undefined Quality! As Mayr's article makes
clear, they are absolutely certain there is no way to define what that
"fittest" is. Good! The "undefined fittest" they are defending is identical
to Dynamic Quality. Natural selection is Dynamic Quality at work.
There is no quarrel whatsoever between the Metaphysics of Quality
and the Darwinian Theory of Evolution. Neither is there a quarrel
between the Metaphysics of Quality and the "teleological" theories
which insist that life has some purpose. What the Metaphysics of
Quality has done is unite these opposed doctrines
within a larger metaphysical structure that accommodates both of
them without contradiction".(end quote)
.......................................................................
The above solution - although valid - will never be
understood/accepted as your message and a lot of similar inputs up
through the years indicate. From Spencer's and Andy's comments it
sounds as if Darwin either must be wrong or right.
Accordingly I have chosen to see the Darwinist vs Creationist - as well
as the Big Bang and other science vs religion disagreements - as part
of the Intellect-Society struggle and we know that these will never be
resolved from their own premises, rather DISSOLVED by the MOQ
which sees this intrinsic level relationship.
Sincerely
Bo
PS
You concluded:
> Darwin's undisputed genius was to suggest evolution by natural
> selection, survival by fitness for the environment over many
> generations of the organism, whatever causes the original novelty
> (mutation). It took the work of many to establish speciation
> mechanisms, genetics etc, but the core fact is clear. No ?
I agree, Darwin's intellectual-objective explanation is a level higher
than the social-mythological one, but the Quality tenet of the higher
level out of the former must be heeded ...here as elsewhere.
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 15 2003 - 16:12:11 BST