From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Fri Mar 26 2004 - 12:30:19 GMT
Hi Mark,
> In a message dated 3/24/04 3:36:50 PM GMT Standard Time, pholden@sc.rr.com
> writes:
>
>
> > Sorry Mark, I don't buy it. You'll have to provide some evidence that the
> > inorganic level is evolving.
>
> Hi Platt,
> May i refer you to Anthony MacWatt's paper, Pirsig's Metaphysics of
> Quality, available via the index of essays at the forum website. At the end
> of the first section you will find a diagram which indicates the continued
> evolution of all levels beyond the emergence of the previous level. 1. Note
> how the gradient of each level is moving up the evolution axis of the
> diagram with respect to the direction of time? 2. Note also that each level
> is evolving faster with respect to time than is the previous level?
>
> Also, consider the following from the end of the paper:
>
> Pirsig has this to say about probability and preference:
> "When the distinction between them is examined an interesting fact appears.
> Preference is always supposed to be subjective. It exists only at the
> intellectual and social levels. At the biological level it becomes
> controversial as to whether animals such as cats have a preference or if
> they function according to Skinnerian stimulus-and-response probability.
> And at the atomic level it is assumed that only probability exists." "The
> MOQ puts an end to this ancient freewill vs. determinism controversy by
> showing that both preference and probability are subsets of value. As the
> distinction between subject and object becomes relatively unimportant in
> the MOQ, so does the distinction between probability and preference. There
> is no basic difference between mind and matter with regard to free will,
> only a difference in degree of freedom. Subatomic forces can express
> limited preferences too." (letter from Robert Pirsig to Anthony McWatt, May
> 3rd, 1997)
>
> i.e. preference is seen as being on a continuum rather than suddenly
> manifesting itself at the human level. In the MOQ, the higher up the
> evolutionary ladder you go (from sub-atomic particles to people) the more
> freedom you have in making preferences. This is why generally a person's
> experience will be that much richer and complex than a dog's while the
> dog's experience will be that much better than a tree's which will be
> better than a piece of rock's and so on. (My emphasis.)
Particles exhibiting "preference" at the sub-atomic level says nothing
about the inorganic level evolving. The fact that a iron filings "prefer"
to be close to magnets is a static inorganic moral pattern. Where's the
potential for evolution or response to DQ in that?
I'm still waiting evidence from you or anyone that the particles, atoms
and forces that make up the inorganic level are evolving into new
particles, atoms or forces, or creating new molecules such as DNA.
Best regards,
Platt
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 : Fri Mar 26 2004 - 12:29:02 GMT