RE: MD Darwinisn in dispute ?

From: Ian Glendinning (ian@psybertron.org)
Date: Mon Sep 15 2003 - 17:48:11 BST

  • Next message: abahn@comcast.net: "Re: MD Darwinisn in dispute ?"

    Thanks Bo,

    I was pretty sure there was no conflict, I certainly knew I was comfortable
    with both, that's why I was surprised to see the debate on my return from
    holiday. Interestingly in my copy of Lila, the two paragraphs you quote are
    highlighted in outline and annotated ..

    "Quality = Fitness OK !!!!"

    Ref your PS, In other contexts (like Artificial Intelligence / Natural
    Language / Adaptive Systems) I've often raised points about "best" being a
    value judgement, and pointed back to Pirsig and MoQ as the hierarchical
    framework for making such judgements.

    Ian

    -----Original Message-----
    From: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
    [mailto:owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk]On Behalf Of skutvik@online.no
    Sent: 15 September 2003 16:08
    To: moq_discuss@moq.org
    Subject: Re: MD Darwinisn in dispute ?

    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

    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 - 17:49:13 BST