[MD] Social Darwinism

[Krimel]

[Marsha]
I have gone so far as to state that Quality is amoral.  Both Platt 
and Arlo immediately started throwing quotes at me.   I presented the 
water analogy:  If everything is water, and there is nothing that is 
not water, then there is no meaning to water, for there is no way of 
distinguishing a duality or difference between water and 
nonwater.   It seems to me, if there were a morality to the MoQ, it 
would reside in the 3rd and 4th levels.  Do you agree, or not?

[Krimel]
Yes, with the provision that I do not see much value in the distinction
between the 3rd and 4th level. The term noosphere has been mentioned a
couple of times recently. It is another term shamelessly abused by Wilber
but it traces to a Russian philosopher Vernadsky and was used by Teilhard de
Chardin. It included Pirsig's version of the intellectual and social levels
and avoids the messy clean-up. It is the sphere of human thought.

But yes, I do not see much sense in talking about physical processes in
terms of morality or preference. I think probabilistic language is clearer
and more precise. I do not think there is a purpose or a drive toward
betterness in the evolution of life. What is frequently cited as such seems
more appropriately described in terms of the struggle for solar radiation to
dissipate into space. I have quoted Case on this a couple of times so I
won't bother again but here is his simplest statement on the subject:

http://ispots.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=25&Itemid=1 

At the biological level it is much easier to project value terminology onto
living things and most philosophers have not attempted to push the point
that animals are automatons. I suspect they have internal memories and
models and emotional states similar to ours. But certainly not formalized
systems of what they ought and ought not to do.