From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sat Feb 21 2004 - 21:10:25 GMT
Platt and all "serious" thinkers:
dmb said:
> There is a reason Pirsig views the beliefs of religious fanatics as stupid
> and evil. He'trying to say something substantial and so was I. So, please
> Platt, rather than amuse us with phony PC indignation why not address the
> actual issues? Why not explain why its stupid and evil? Or why you think
> its smart and good? Why strike a silly pose when you can take the dabate
> seriously?
Platt replied:
You want serious? Try this:
"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." (Lila, Chp. 11)
dmb says:
Well, Thanks for the seriousness. The quote is relevant to a certain degree,
although it doesn't really answer the "stupid and evil" question. I suppose
this quote is supposed to support the beliefs of creationists? If that's the
case, I certainly disagree. Creationism is not a "teleological" theory.
There are "serious" thinkers who criticize Darwinism on philosophical
grounds. These are where we find teleological theories, but these are a far
cry from those who oppose Darwinism for religious reasons. Creationism is a
case of people asserting social level myths over intellectual level science.
This is why Pirsig describes the Scopes trial as a battle between social and
intellectual values. And that's why its only correct to say that creationism
is stupid and evil. (It recently became illegal to use the word "evolution"
in Georgia's schools.) Having said that, if we look at a larger version of
the "serious" quote you provided we can better see what Pirsig is saying.
He's not making room for the beliefs of creationists and fundametalists in
the MOQ, he's saying that the MOQ adds a teleology of Quality to
Darwinism....
"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 Dyanic Quality at work. There is no quarrel
whatsoever between the MOQ and the Darwinian Theory of Evolution. ..."
I'd advise anyone who is interested in this topic to take another look at
chapter 11 of Lila. Pirsig explains how SOM is the real problem with
Darwinism. He explains how materialistic metaphysics creates the problems of
"purposelessness" and shows that this is what the philosophical objections
are aimed at. He corrects this problem with the MOQ, which then adopts
evolution as a unifying priciple that extends to all levels, not just the
biological level. Its a beautiful thing.
Thanks,
dmb
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 : Sat Feb 21 2004 - 21:16:41 GMT