[MD] Sin Part 1

[Laird Bedore]

Platt Holden wrote:
> Hi Laird, 
>
>   
>> [Laird]
>> The phrase "survival of the fittest" is closely tied to Darwin, but the
>> concept is not bound exclusively to biological issues. It's the
>> underlying belief that people must rise to meet the situation
>> (biological, social, or intellectual), and those who fail to do so must
>> suffer the consequences - biologically (death), socially (outcast), or
>> intellectually (fool). The relationship to Darwin's theory of evolution
>> is so close it's considered synonymous. It's quite unabashedly
>> individualistic (risks and outcomes are completely in the hands of the
>> individual), which is partly explains why I make the connection.
>>
>> Advocates see success or failure itself determining morality and 
>> justifying the consequences. Those who hunt and gather deserve life,
>> those who don't gather food deserve death. Law-abiders deserve
>> community, lawbreakers deserve imprisonment and isolation. This
>> fundamental premise is the key building block to much of evolutionary
>> morality, including the "everyone is basically selfish" idea recently
>> discussed here.
>>
>> So what I was saying is that I see quite a lot of this "survival of the
>> fittest" background in your statements. I think it's very compatible
>> with Pirsig's moral ontology, no worries there. Just making the
>> observation, putting a stick in the sand and measuring the distance.
>>     
> [Platt]
> A very clear and cogent explanation of applying "survival of the 
> fittest" to the higher levels. I can see how you apply it to my stance 
> on certain issues and to Pirsig's evolutionary morality. Thanks for
> explicating your meaning. A pleasure to read such an articulate answer. 
>
> Incidentally, and probably not news to you, the phrase "survival of the 
> fittest" was coined not by Herbert Spencer, not Darwin. 
>
> What grabbed my attention in Lila as Pirsig was talking about Darwinian 
> evolution was his question:
>
> "But why do the fittest survive? Why does any life survive? It's 
> illogical. It's self-contradictory that life should survive. If life is 
> strictly a result of the physical and chemical forces of nature then 
> why is life opposed to these same forces in its struggle to survive? 
> Either life is with physical nature or it's against it. If it's with 
> nature there's nothing to survive. If it's against physical nature then 
> there must be something apart from the physical and chemical forces of 
> nature that is motivating it to be against physical nature." (Lila, 11)
>
> I wonder how Dawkins and other radical evolutionists would answer? 
>
> Regards,
> Platt   
[Laird]
Thanks Platt. I'm glad I could convey some meaning out of the odd 
patterns I put together!

I vaguely remember Spencer's in regards to social sciences, but I was 
among the very worst of history students until my last semester in 
college (brilliant, inspiring professor). Interestingly I was talking 
more about Spencer's ideas, but his name escaped me. Science sticks more 
easily to my gray matter, so the reference Darwin came to mind first.

I think when Pirsig wrote that part of chapter 11 he was using (SOM) 
rationality against (SOM) evolution to illustrate a deficiency in the 
SOM approach. It's a crafty question-statement intended for people to 
'spin their wheels' without coming up with a complete answer. The beauty 
and madness of incomplete questions! One thing's for sure, Dawkins 
wouldn't attack the statement head-on (smart man!), probably taking aim 
at the premises or terms. The problem is that he'd never leave the 
bubble of evolutionary theory, which he'd have to do in order to point 
out the philosophical trap of the statement. Wheelspin.

-Laird