From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Mon Sep 15 2003 - 19:56:33 BST
Hi
The quote from Pirsig is good, I agree with it
very much, but I think I would like the Darwinian
fan club to explain to me how Darwin is compatible
with teleology? My answer would be that it onlt tells
a small part of the evolution story, we need to seek
a new MOW context, unfortunately Darwin sits in a
SOM context, hence it cannot talk about purpose
without reducing it to half of the SOM dualism, the
matter half.
Regards
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: <abahn@comcast.net>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 5:54 PM
Subject: Re: MD Darwinisn in dispute ?
> 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
>
>
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 - 20:02:01 BST