[MD] Oneness, Dualism & Intellect

[MarshaV]

At 04:13 AM 3/9/2007, Jos wrote:

Greetings Jos,

Somewhere in this statement Arlo replaced "a movement towards 
betterness" with " a movement towards Quality".  My subjective call 
is that "Quality" is amoral, and all value events are subjective.

Marsha




>[Arlo]
> >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?
>
>Err, Jos scratches head....
>Try this:
>
>Various chambers contain inert (and uncharged, helium, xenon, argon 
>etc) but comercially valuable purified confined gases, dividers are 
>removed such that spontaneously the gases diffuse into one another.
>Which state is "better", pure usefull substrates or the melange?
>
>(Assuming hypothetically that: No bonding is occurring and there are 
>no energetics changes in the 1st state as compared to the second and 
>that the primary arrangement of mollecules (irrespective of 
>compound)in state one and two are identical in terms of velocity, 
>realtive distances etc)
>
>The only difference is subjective cultural/intellectual value in the 
>eyes of the observer, to whom the resulting spontaneously occurring 
>result is has almost no value as compared with the highly valuable 
>starting point.
>
>Discuss.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org
> > [mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org]On Behalf Of MarshaV
> > Sent: 08 March 2007 20:08
> > To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> > Subject: Re: [MD] Oneness, Dualism & Intellect
> >
> >
> >
> > 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/
> >
> >
> > 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/
> >
> > PLEASE NOTE: THE ABOVE MESSAGE WAS RECEIVED FROM THE INTERNET.
> > On entering the GSI, this email was scanned for viruses by
> > the Government Secure Intranet (GSi) virus scanning service
> > supplied exclusively by Cable & Wireless in partnership with
> > MessageLabs.
> > In case of problems, please call your organisational IT Helpdesk.
> > The MessageLabs Anti Virus Service is the first managed
> > service to achieve the CSIA Claims Tested Mark (CCTM
> > Certificate Number 2006/04/0007), the UK Government quality
> > mark initiative for information security products and
> > services.  For more information about this please visit
>www.cctmark.gov.uk
>
>
>This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention 
>of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or 
>copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, 
>please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
>
>This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention 
>of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or 
>copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, 
>please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
>
>This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be 
>monitored, recorded and retained by the Department For 
>Constitutional Affairs. E-mail monitoring / blocking software may be 
>used, and e-mail content may be read at any time. You have a 
>responsibility to ensure laws are not broken when composing or 
>forwarding e-mails and their contents.
>
>
>This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention 
>of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or 
>copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, 
>please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
>
>This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention 
>of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or 
>copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, 
>please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
>
>This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be 
>monitored, recorded and retained by the Department For 
>Constitutional Affairs. E-mail monitoring / blocking software may be 
>used, and e-mail content may be read at any time. You have a 
>responsibility to ensure laws are not broken when composing or 
>forwarding e-mails and their contents.
>
>The original of this email was scanned for viruses by Government 
>Secure Intranet (GSi)  virus scanning service supplied exclusively 
>by Cable & Wireless in partnership with MessageLabs.
>On leaving the GSI this email was certified virus free.
>The MessageLabs Anti Virus Service is the first managed service to 
>achieve the CSIA Claims Tested Mark (CCTM Certificate Number 
>2006/04/0007), the UK Government quality mark initiative for 
>information security products and services.  For more information 
>about this please visit www.cctmark.gov.uk
>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/