[MD] Oneness, Dualism & Intellect

[MarshaV]

Arlo,

Seems like an excellent answer!

Marsha


At 01:56 PM 3/8/2007, Arlo wrote:
>[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?
>
>
>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/