[MD] The Academy is Evil! Here's what I'd do instead...

[118]

Hi Arlo,
Thanks for your replies.  I will take out the University improvement
stuff, since this was just in answer to a question of yours.  They
were just ideas off the top of my head, and I am not sure how much I
can (or want to) defend them.  The overall concept was one of a
balance between dogma and progress.  However, I will make a reply to
your evolution passages below.

On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 4:25 PM, ARLO J BENSINGER JR <ajb102 at psu.edu> wrote:
> [Mark]
> So, in my opinion, the theory [of evolution] has not advanced at all.
>
> [Arlo]
> As I just mentioned in my reply to John, there are a lot of open ends here, and
> I'm going to address the ones I think are most important, if I skip over one
> you want to revisit, please let me know.
>
> I think the theory has evolved, not only do we understand the processes better,
> research across many fields has evolved greatly because of gains in this area.

[Mark]
The original theory was consolidated by a guy called Darwin with the
following book:

"The origin of species by means of natural selection; or, The
preservation of favored races in the struggle for life"

This is was termed the evolution of species which created a
dialectical opposition between what a species was made of, and what
was selecting for it.  That which survived was named the fittest,
which only meant that it survived, nothing more.  As it stands, this
theory has not changed.  All research that supports this theory is
still based on adaptive changes that meet environmental demands.  So
when I state that there has been little change in theory, that is what
I mean.  It is still primitive in its proposition.

The faster a species can propagate, the more flexible it is to adapt.
There is no driving force to survive, only to change.  Therefore the
concept of a struggle for life is simply a teleological statement for
adaptive survival of a species, which is passive.

There has been little written on the process of natural selection
itself, except that it may be somewhat random.  So random mutation
facing random selection, causes ordered life.  In my opinion, any
proclamation of randomness is simply another word for God.  If we do
not understand it, we call it random.  In this way, the theory has not
evolved either, it is still based on mysticism.
 >
> And, if you primary complaint is that Quality explains things Evolution does
> not, then at the least we can point to, again, Ant and David Granger (and let's
> include Henry Gurr, etc.) HAVE hurdled the wall and Quality IS now making gains
> within the Academy. I share your frustration that it has been slow, but
> nonetheless we are moving forward.
>
[Mark]
I do not have a complaint that Quality explains things Evolution does
not, since evolution does not explain much.  My only complaint is the
use of the term evolution for Quality.  If Quality is evolving, then
what is the pressure causing this evolution?  There must be something
outside of Quality causing it to evolve, since evolution is
directional.  Things do not evolve on their own, by definition (at
least in biology, philosophy may be different).  We can say that
Quality is all, and that its expression is evolving.  Again we need
some pressure from somewhere for this to happen.  I am approaching
this from the viewpoint of a biologist who has spent some time
learning about evolution.  This is not necessarily a problem if taken
in a layman's sense, and does not really do much to Quality
Metaphysics, in my opinion, whether there is evolution or not.

I agree that movement forward at any rate is good.  Many disciplines
move forward on a number of fronts or schools of thought.  If we were
to leave this up to a few people, we may have to wait a while.  I
fully appreciate that Pirsig only started something, and to keep
resorting to quotes of his is not very fruitful.  He started this in
about 1974, and it has been growing in some peoples minds for the last
35 years.

Oh, one final point on a statement of yours (that I deleted) saying
that nobody in the Academy fears new ideas.  I would have to disagree.
 There is constant fear that one's own position will be destroyed by a
new idea.  New ideas are suppressed much more than they are accepted.
This is a predominant aspect of Academia, in my opinion.  It is not
just a bunch of congenial professors having coffee.  The competition
is awesome.  Groups hold together defending each other.  Dissenters
become outcasts.  I have seen this.  Personally I have always stayed
out of this group behavior.

Cheers,
Mark
>
>
> 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/md/archives.html
>