[MD] Social Imposition ?

[Case]

David M,

I can't really stand to reread that chapter but he anthropomorphizes
shamelessly. Talks about evolution in terms of its purpose. Says things are
evolving "toward betterness"... It all kind of works if you discount all
that and go with the point he is driving at. But Platt for example takes
this rubbish at face value and there in lies the disservice.

Case

-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of David M
Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 4:04 PM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] Social Imposition ?

Hi Case

Not sure what you mean by this dumbing down claim?

David M

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Case" <Case at iSpots.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 6:50 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Social Imposition ?


> [Platt]
> You're guessing. In my experience, when something human is invented, 
> someone
> has to be first. Pirsig agrees.
>
> [Case]
> The real question is one Ham raised: So What? Forget about the origin of
> writing for a second. Stick with Guttenberg; clearly an invention, clearly
> attributable to one man. So what? What credit beyond acknowledgement is
> entitled here? Do we all owe his heirs a royalty check? If Uga the cave 
> man
> had invented movable type, his accomplishment would have been far greater
> than Guttenberg's. He would single handedly have invented written language
> and the printing press all at once out of his own imagination. A stunning
> intellectual achievement, of no significance whatever. With no one around
> able to read what he wrote and posted, he would not get much of anything 
> but
> laughter from his cohorts. We certainly do acknowledge and reward 
> inventors
> and originators when their accomplishments are absorbed into the 
> collective.
> But we ignore as meaningless inventions and ideas that no one cares about.
> So being the first is a dubious distinction. While I appreciate your
> stressing of the importance of individual contributions the issue here is:
> contribution too what?
>
>> [Case]
>> I have definitely reacted against Pirsig's dumbed down version expressed
>> in chapter 11. What about equilibrium and systems talk bothers you?
>
> [Platt]
> It doesn't explain why. And it ignores individuals who comprise a 
> "system."
>
> [Case]
> If you continue to rely on Pirsig as an authority on evolutionary theory
> your level of understanding is going to remain severely restricted. One of
> the valuable contributions Pirsig is attempting to make is to expand
> concepts of evolutionary theory into the realm of social and intellectual
> development. His dumbing down does a disservice to this. Your taking this
> dumbed down version as gospel is not serving you well. I was rather 
> warming
> to Dennett's characterization of Darwin's ideas as dangerous largely 
> because
> any fool can understand them and their implications. Your comments on
> evolution lead me to suspect that Dennett is wrong.
>
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
> 


moq_discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/