From: abahn@comcast.net
Date: Mon Sep 15 2003 - 17:54:08 BST
Hi Bo,
Thanks for the Pirsig quote on Darwinian theory.
You said:
"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."
Andy:
I am just wondering what comments of mine would suggest that Darwin must be
either right or wrong. My thoughts have always been that Darwinian theory is a
very useful theory and helps us explain much about our experience. I find
Pirsig's thoughts you provided from Lila very illuminating on this. I have no
quarrel with accepting his solution at all other than his equating "fittest" and
"quality" with "best" at the beginning of the quote. But, he goes on to clear
this up with his discussion on "undefined quality", "undefined fitness" and
"dynamic quality at work." This all works for me.
Regards
Andy
ps (David M.) You see. Pirsig does address Darwinism in Lila. And from the
quote provided by Bo, it appears he has no quarrels with it at all. :-)
> 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 - 17:56:45 BST