[MD] Reductionism

[Steve Peterson]

Hi DMB, all,


On Jul 7, 2009, at 1:45 PM, david buchanan wrote:

>
> dmb said:
> Better and worse are just two sides of the same coin. It's DQ that  
> gets you off the hot stove. One could say it was worse on the stove  
> or one could say it was better off the stove. Either way, it means  
> the same thing. Likewise, survival of the best and extinction of  
> the worst both operate on exactly the same principle.
>
>
> Matt replied:
> While it is certainly true that better and worse are two sides of  
> the same coin, I find it difficult to think one is using a single,  
> unified sense of the term denoted by "DQ" if one wants to say both  
> 1) "DQ is reality and therefore both betterness and worseness" and  
> 2) "DQ is the best."  To say that all Pirsig was saying about  
> evolution was that the best survive and the worst die, it seems to  
> me, is to fall into the same meaninglessness Pirsig accused  
> Dawinianian tautologists who say survivors survive.
>
> dmb says:
>
> Well, first of all, you might want to separate the empirical claims  
> from the historical, evolutionary claims. The sense of better and  
> worse is something that occurs in the moment of experience while  
> the survivors are the "best" products of that primary sense of  
> value. In other words, this primary sense of value works to guide  
> evolution while the best state is the goal toward which we are guided.

Steve:
I think this comment is an important key to understanding the MOQ.  
I've thought for a while that there are two different perspectives  
that have to be kept in mind and kept distinct, and I'm glad that DMB  
has given them useful distinguishing labels: empirical and historical.

Best,
Steve