[MD] MOQ and the Future: An Inquiry into Usefulness

markhsmit markhsmit at aol.com
Tue Nov 10 20:41:01 PST 2009 

Hi Bo,
Thank you for the explanation below, and putting the MOQ
in terms that I can understand.  I see DQ as a force which shapes.
I still do not get the direction or the levels, and why humans are
so important in it, but I will study on,

Mark

On Nov 9, 2009, at 11:18:52 AM, skutvik at online.no wrote:
From:   skutvik at online.no
Subject:    Re: [MD] MOQ and the Future: An Inquiry into Usefulness
Date:   November 9, 2009 11:18:52 AM PST
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Hi Marksmit

8 Nov.you wrote:

> I'm getting a little confused here.  Evolution, in the traditional
> sense, occurred through natural selection.  That is, there was
> something (environment) selecting which genes should survive.  By
> this analogy,  what is it that is selecting for the evolution of
> Quality? 

You ask: "..what is it that is selecting for the evolution of Quality?" 
According to Pirsig DQ drives the static evolution, in LILA he only 
treats biological evolution probably because this is "evolution" in SOM, 
but in the MOQ there are similar evolutions at all levels. I don't know if 
this is what confuses you or ...? 

> Quality may be that which is, and that which isn't, and everything in >
> between, but even so, there has to be something greater than Quality that
> is effectively bringing about evolution. 

Pirsig claims that DQ is "natural selection" and that the MOQ thus 
unites creationism and Darwinism. (LILA p.148) 

"Survival of the fittest" is meaningful only when "fittest" is 
equated with "best," which is to say, "Quality." And the 
Darwinians don't mean just any old quality, they mean 
undefined Quality! As Mayr's article makes clear, they are 
absolutely certain there is no way to define what that "fittest" is. 
Good! The "undefined fittest" they are defending is identical to 
Dynamic Quality. Natural selection is Dynamic Quality at work. 

However, I'm dubious, this seems as contrieved as his suggestion of 
Quality varieties of scientific disciplines; Q-physics, Q-economy ... etc. 
I think Darwinism explains biological evolution fairly well, as well as 
physics explains the inorganic. Once the reproduction "sesam-sesam" 
was established the mammal organism was just a question of time. 
What's a billion years in this context?

Where the MOQ offers a real new and striking approach is regarding 
the inter-level leaps (not the intra-level evolution. Biology has no clue 
how life emerged out of inorganic matter and Pirsig's on the slight 
chance of life is true, there isn't a chance of life emerging. The lower 
level (in this case "inorgany") works overtime to prevent life. And this 
does not just pertain to life, it's just as mysterial how the social and 
intellectual levels could emerge.. 

> Terms change with the times, and many are hard pressed to  remember the
> original use of evolution as it was applied to living species.  It
> would seem that Evolution for Quality, just means Change.  However,
> this change is directional. 

Yes, it's directional in the sense of an escape from the former static 
level, biology an effort to escape inorganic lifelessness, society ditto 
regarding biologys senseless proliferating and intellect an escape from 
society's blind discipline. 

> To take up Platt's question, what is providing the direction for the
> Evolution of Quality?  Also, why does it have to be human
> communication that is at the pinnacle?  It would seem to me that
> something created by the human mind is trapped.  Intellect cannot form
> a higher level, anymore than water communicating as it travels down a
> river. 

"Human communication"? On what level are you now? If it is the social 
and you wonder why only humans have reached that stage it's 
because the 3rd. level isn't mere assemblies of organisms. 

> So, why is Quality evolving the way it is proposed?  If it
> is from moral order, then moral order is above Quality. 

Quality is morality!

> If
> Quality encompasses morality, then morality is evolving
> within Quality.  

That's right.

> If Quality is the force which is creating levels, it is analogous to
> the environment, which means that Quality is separate from Morality. 

Forget Darwin's evolution as an analogy to the Quality level evolution. 

> Traditionally, one things creates evolution of another (this can go
> both ways, of course, coevolution).  But you still need to have two
> separate things.  Everything cannot be one, and still have
> evolution.

You mean that the environment determines what qualities will survive? 
That's correct once life is established, but the inorganic nature was the 
seeming insurmountable obstacle that life had to overcome, and it's 
"Life out of Matter" that is the mystery, as said once life was 
established it was plain going along the "natural selection" lines. 

Am I wrong?

You are not wrong regarding "natural selection". Darwin's is a scientific 
theory - i.e. an intellectual pattern - but the MOQ is beyond intellect 
and its own "darwinism" is the DQ/SQ interplay: DQ constantly trying to 
escape all stability, yet needing it for the next increment.This pertains 
to the INTER (between) level evolution, while it leaves the INTRA-level 
workings to intellect's respective scientific disciplines.

IMO

Bodvar 







> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> On Nov 6, 2009, at 5:08:31 AM, plattholden at gmail.com wrote:
> From: plattholden at gmail.com
> Subject: Re: [MD] MOQ and the Future: An Inquiry into Usefulness
> Date: November 6, 2009 5:08:31 AM PST To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> On 6 Nov 2009 at 4:52, craigerb at comcast.net wrote:
> 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > [Platt] 
> > > Why does hereditary work to insure survival? 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > [Craig, previously] 
> > Suppose there's an organism with 2 predators: one POWERFUL but
> > slow,   the other FAST & weak.  Suppose further there are 4
> > combinations of genes:  1) fight POWERFUL & fight FAST  2) fight
> > POWERFUL & flee FAST 
> > 
> > 3) flee POWERFUL & fight FAST 
> > 
> > 4) flee POWERFUL & flee FAST 
> > Those with gene 1) or 2) fall prey to P.  Those with gene 2) or 4)
> > fall prey to F. 
> > 
> > The only survivor is the one with gene 3), that outruns the
> > POWERFUL & fights off the WEAK. 
> > 
> > It's offspring inherit gene 3) which "works to insure survival". 
> > 
> > [Platt] 
> > 
> > > Why do genes work to insure survival? 
> > 
> > 
> > First, notice this is a different question than before ("Why does
> > hereditary work to insure survival?")  Genes as such don't "work
> > to insure survival".  Genes just work to develope the organism in
> > a specific way.  It is only HEREDITARY genes that "work to insure
> > survival". 
> > 
> > Suppose you have 2 similar fit enough organisms, differing only
> > that one has successful gene set A which is hereditary & the other
> > has a non-hereditary gene set B , which has a  25% chance of
> > reproducing a successful gene set & a   75% chance of reproducing
> > unsuccessful genes.  Suppose further each organism that reaches
> > maturity  always produces  4 offspring: 
> > 
> > In the 2nd generation: there are 4 offspring with gene set A, 1
> > offspring with a successful gene set  & 3 with unsuccessful gene
> > sets.  In the 3rd generation: there are 16 offspring with gene set
> > A, 1 offspring with a successful gene set  & 3 with unsuccessful
> > gene sets.  In the 4th generation: there are 64 offspring with
> > gene set A, 1 offspring with a successful gene set  & 3 with
> > unsuccessful gene sets.  In the 5th generation: there are 256
> > offspring with gene set A, 1 offspring with a successful gene
> > set & 3 with unsuccessful gene sets.  After just a few
> > generations, organisms with hereditary gene set A dominate the
> > successful  organisms, while the organisms with non-hereditary
> > gene sets are one specimen from extinction.   Craig 
> 
> OK, then why do HEREDITARY genes work to insure survival? Why 
> does a "successful gene set" work to insure survival? The word 
> "successful" implies that survival is better than the alternative.
> Why? Why wasn't nature content to remain at the inorganic level?
> You  describe HOW evolution works. My question (and Pirsig's) is,
> "WHY?" 
> 
> Platt 
> 
> 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/
> 
> 
> 




------- End of forwarded message -------
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/

More information about the Moq_Discuss mailing list