[MD] The difference between a Monet and a finger painting

[Krimel]

[Krimel]
Would you agree that it is unfortunate that the MOQ excludes itself from
mainstream evolutionary thinking as a result of Pirsig's lack of contact
with say, Gould, Wilson or Dawkins? 

Ant McWatt commented:
No, I’d say it’s unfortunate that mainstream evolutionary thinking has
excluded itself from taking on board the MOQ (though, to be fair, I think
Dawkins followed this Discussion group for a while in the mid-2000s)!  If
the (metaphysical) basics that you rely on are problematic in the first
place then the value of your empirical work is going to be reduced
accordingly.  LILA would have been a more interesting read if it had
included reference to thinkers such as Gould, Wilson and Dawkins but
possibly that would have taken out the fun for making these comparisons for
yourself.

[Krimel]
My question was prompted by a quote you posted earlier that included this: 

"A century and a half after the publication of Origin of Species,
evolutionary thinking has expanded beyond the field of biology to include
virtually all human-related subjects—anthropology, archeology, psychology,
economics, religion, morality, politics, culture, and art.”

And yet you claim all those disciplines would be better off embracing
teleology and an account the thermodynamics that Pirsig shares with the
Institute for Creation Research.

Krimel/Case then asked:
Doesn't his teleological view and his insistence on a "direction" for
evolution cripple progress on the MOQ? 
 
Ant McWatt commented:
By “progress”, I take it that you mean academic acceptance in the
Anglo-American tradition?  If so, I’d tend to agree with you though I think
that’s
more down to the blinkered attitudes of these academics who can’t see
beyond the creationist/materialist options and, in addition, are usually
 clueless about Zen (and/or Dynamic Quality). 

[Krimel]
So you agree with Platt that academia is following blind dogma in rejecting
teleology and the doctrines of the Institute for Creation Research?
 
[Ant]
Possibly, it comes down to how much weight that you put on the eventual
appearance of civilization, the Arts and Sciences in this universe.  

[Krimel}
Are you still waiting? I suspect you are not alone.

[Ant]
Explain those just using the laws of physics!  

[Krimel]
I suppose you could if you wanted to but who would want to do that? It
sounds time consuming.

[Ant]
Personally, I do think they indicate a general progressive direction; a
creative impulse if you like but, critically for the MOQ, one that does not
require a pre-determined static plan and/or creator. 

[Krimel]
But a "general progressive direction" does not suggest a "creative impulse"
any more that a run of 500 billions heads alters that fact that, on the next
toss, the odds are 50/50. Even a general claim that the future will be
"better” suggests that it is somehow "pre-determined" to be "better". 

How much "better"? "Better" for whom?

Ant McWatt comments:
Mistakes?!!!  There’s mistakes by Pirsig in the Baggini interview?!!!  My
guess is that you’re thinking of Pirsig’s comments in LILA concerning the
Second Law of Thermodynamics but, if not, you better be more specific.


[Krimel]
Mercifully, Baggini did not push Pirsig on that line of thinking. But feel
free to comment on Pirsig's befuddled response in this exchange during an
interview conducted via e-mail. Obviously either Baggini was gracious enough
not to ask a follow-up question or he was not permitted to. Pirsig's
response just reinforces Baggini's need to ask the question in the first
place.

BAGGINI: 
One final question about aspects of the MOQ that might help explain academic
resistance to it. LILA has a remarkably wide scope and as a result it often
deals with, dismisses or solves ideas rather brusquely. 

For example, at one point you say “[The theory of evolution] goes into many
volumes about how the fittest survive but never once goes into the question
of why.” (p144) 

Most biologists would see that as blatantly untrue, and that furthermore, if
you think the question of why the fittest survive hasn't been answered by
the theory of evolution, you just haven't understood it. Now it may well be
that you have responses to this and can explain why it is you think the
question of why the fittest survive hasn't really been addressed. But if you
present your thesis in this telescopic, sweeping way, surely you can't
complain if informed critics dismiss you. You can't expect them to take it
on trust that behind these assertions are more careful, fuller arguments
that justify the claims.  

PIRSIG: 
That line was an integral part of an entire chapter on the subject and thus
cannot be called telescopic. I would answer that biologists who think my
question doesn't understand the theory of evolution are biologists who do
not understand the difference between “how” and “why.” The answers they give
for “why” are usually “competitive advantage” or “survival of the fittest.”
But if you look closely you will see that these are not scientific terms.
“Fittest” is a subjective term. It exists only in the mind of a scientific
observer. It isn't out there in the nature he observes. The same is true of
“advantage.” Ask a biologist who thinks my question doesn't understand the
theory of evolution, to define in exact scientific terms the meaning of
these evaluative words. If he takes time to do so I predict he will give up
or he will come up with nonsense or he will find himself drifting eventually
toward the solutions arrived at by the Metaphysics of Quality.