[MD] Oneness, Dualism & Intellect

[ARLO J BENSINGER JR]

[Arlo previously]
Here, with evolution, we see a singular process (the movement of patterns
towards "betterness") occurring throughout nature and history. I think it's a
safe inference to say this process will continue. Indeed, I think evolution is
simply the visible manifestation of Quality. 
 
[Case]
Arlo, you have made this sort of statement several times and while it jibes with
Pirsig, it does not accord well with evolutionary theory as I understand it.
What is this "betterness"? Is this "betterness" in the sense that history is
written by the survivors so it is or was better for them?

[Arlo]
Hi Case. Your question seems to focus primarily on social-historical evolution.
In this sense, yes, I'd argue that people act in accordance to what they think
is "better", and history tends to side with the victors of conflict. Don't
confuse, however, my statement that things evolve towards betterness with the
idea of a straight, upward-slanting line.

Violence is often used to reify static patterns and stifle, or even destroy,
movement towards "betterness" that threatens the foundations of instantiated
power. History could be seen as a constant struggle to move forward when each
step forward creates additional webs of power that want to stop that movement.

In the aggregate, however, and we could be talking tens of thousands of years,
the overall tendency is towards Quality (if you prefer that over "betterness").
Our lives are in nearly all ways "better" than early human life. Does that mean
we haven't misstepped, or ran too quickly towards a false idea? Not at all, we
most certainly have. 

The question also harkens back to how we fix a belief that something is
"better". Many Germans felt following Hitler was movement towards "betterness",
as did the flood of European immigrants who decimated the Native populations of
this land. This is why I find critical thinking to be so, well, critical.
Peirce identified four ways we "fix" our beliefs; tenacity, authority, a priori
and scientific methodology. Although Peirce was not able to comment on Pirsig's
extension of science, the basic tenants seem to reveal that most people are
satisfied relying on tenacity and authority to fix many, if not most, of their
beliefs. This was the central problem of The Reich and the Native American
exterminations. Power, in these cases centralized in Europe, manipulated the
understanding of "better" to advance their own power, while most simply bought
in either out of fear or promises of sharing in the power. 

Also realize that I place no preeminent, extra-natural role to "man". There is
no extra-natural entity protecting us, as "his children", from the natural
processes of biological and inorganic reality. An asteroid is an asteroid, a
virus is a virus, ice ages come and go, and we can only respond, and maybe not
when the time comes and we are driven into extinction. In a sense, of course,
that asteroid is itself following inorganic quality, it is doing what asteroids
do, and while its existence follows inorganic quality, it may very well bring
about the end of certain biological and social and intellectual patterns.

[Case]
Or do you see this as "betterness" in some metaphysical or cosmological sense?
This smacks of teleology and Microsoft Word does not even recognize
"betterness" as a word.

[Arlo]
My version of Word does not recognize "Machinima" either. Should you stop using
it? I see "betterness" as the reason anything moves from point A to point B.
Can you think of anything that moves from A to B because of "worseness"? Or, if
its a completely indifferent state, why move?