[MD] Dawkins supports the MOQ

[ian glendinning]

Platt,
When you ask
"Why do the fittest survive? What's the motive?"

You miss the fact that you've answered it already, using words like
best and better.
I have long likened "fitness" in the evolutionary sense to "quality"
in the MoQ sense. As you point out Pirsig had already effectively
answered the question.

Dawkins doesn't miss the question of motive. As you'd expect he sees
no higher intelligent game plan, he simply sees the quality motive in
each and every interaction. He just doesn't have the word quality in
his vocabulary, the same MoQ-way you and I do.

You do a disservice to intelligent scientists everywhere by even
suggesting they might not even be curious to ask "why". A fatuous
allegation. You just find a different kind of answer to the sort
you're looking for. That's your problem, not his.

And lest there be any doubt, Dawkins I cannot stand. He's the worst
news for the cause of neo-Darwinism, because whilst sticking to his
objective scientific views, he fails to even acknowledge anything
remotely spiritual, despite orginating the idea of memes. Gimme
Dennett, Pinker, Blackmore or Jones anyday. I wrote an essay highly
critical of Dawkins some years ago.
http://www.psybertron.org/Dawkins%20Hyper-Rationalism.html

Glad you spotted the fittest / best / MoQ / Quality parallel in
evolution though.
Hope for me and you yet.
That "BeliefNet" site has some good stuff doesn't it. Scott brought us
that Peyote reference from there too.
Ian

>> On 12/14/05, Platt Holden <pholden at sc.rr.com> wrote: