[MD] Social Imposition ?

[pholden at davtv.com]

Quoting Case <Case at iSpots.com>:

> [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?

Evolution.

 
> > [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.

Yes, I know. You are the arbiter of truth.






-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/