[MD] Evolution

[Ham Priday]

On 2/28/10 at 5:27 PM, Joseph Maurer wrote:


> Evolution is the 10,000 lb Tiger sitting in the room of
> OQ Discuss.  Ham opts for Essence. Negation is enough,
> is the best criterion for change.
> Although positive evolution is more satisfying.

There's more than one 10,000-lb tiger in the MD room.  But since Joe has 
elected to focus on Evolution, for the present I'll wrestle with that one.

Negation as used in metaphysics has nothing to do with polarity in the 
electo-mechanical sense and, unless Joe is talking about entropy as the 
dissolution of energy and matter in the universe, I don't know what 
"negative evolution" is supposed to mean.  Evolution is a term generally 
used by biologists to describe the continuously unfolding process of nature 
and its species.  It's also sometimes loosely applied to the historical 
development of human society.

Evolution, History, and Process all refer to changes or transitions 
perceived as moving the relational world in a "positive" direction.  They 
are all time-dependent phenomena involving intellectual conception.  Cyclic 
events, like the phases of the moon or birth and death, are not regarded as 
evolutionary, nor is the growth or atrophy of an organism which is 
attributed to cause-and-effect.  Because man is the measure of value, to 
borrow from Pirsig's analogy, a change that has no "positive value" tends to 
be ignored by the intellect.

Change and process are dynamic events that imply movement in contrast to 
staticity. That's where "relation" comes in.  The appearance of change 
requires constancy in the order of things.  If we didn't have a static 
reference -- the ground on which we stand, for example -- we would not 
perceive change.  Existence is a spatio-temporal system in which some things 
move or change relative to others.  So, in addition to an observer, there 
must be the appearance of a pluralistic universe in order to experience 
change of a directional kind.

Now we can address the "negation" Joe is concerned about.  Dynamic and 
static are contrary states, just as monism and multiplicity are contrary 
systems.  In order for there to be contrariety there must be difference.  I 
maintain that the appearance of difference and contrariety is a negational 
phenomenon.  The individual self is essentially a non-entity (negate) which 
by sensing Value experientially differentiates it into the multiplistic 
world by its own nothingness, that is, by negating the value of otherness. 
This is really a "secondary negation", however, because nothingness is what 
divides primary Sensibility from essential Value.  From this negation comes 
the precept of self/other, time/space, one/many, before/after, here/there, 
static/dynamic, cause/effect, good/bad, and all the other contrarieties that 
comprise our experiential existence.

This is the essentialist hypothesis on which my ontology is based.  How this 
compares with Pirsig's ontology may possibly be understood by reading Joe's 
analysis below.  (I claim no responsibility for his assertion that "an idea 
can be turned negative" or "a simple negation seems to be the acceptable 
explanation".)

Essentially speaking,
Ham

 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

> Others opt for 4 levels in evolution following Pirsig's ontology
> in naming 4 levels inorganic, organic, social, intellectual.  But
> Pirsig quibbles a bit and says that at the organic level the first
> form of reproduction is the individual cell splitting and then
> there were two.  Then he acknowledges that the reproduction
> we are used to where the sperm fertilizes the egg cell and the
> being develops to a mature fetus in a womb and is born
> becoming another individual is a DQ breakthrough.  I am
> assuming he uses DQ in the sense of a new level.
>
> Emotions are left out of the metaphysical paradigm of evolution.
> Yet Nicoll points out that the positive product of an intellect,
> an idea, can be turned negative by an emotional input.  So much
> for ignoring emotions!
>
> Pirsig is accepted as a hero.  The activities of heroes are so
> special and require such careful documentation that a normal
> question would be: How do they do that. Where did that
> come from?  Simplest answer an awareness in a further
> evolution to a higher Emotional level and a higher Intellectual
> level in consciousness only.  At least the two new levels are an
> explanation of why a few individuals in history are so important
> in their influence over our behavior.  Although many times a
> simple negation seems to be the acceptable explanation until
> history (time), discussion, and changes in circumstances prove
> otherwise.  I do not view time as a metaphysical principle
> like in Time/Space.
>
> J