[MD] Evolution

[Joseph Maurer]

On 2/28/10 11:17 PM, "Ham Priday" <hampday1 at verizon.net> 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.
 
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.
 
Hi Ham and all

[Joe]
Negation‹not this, not that‹can be a tool for focusing attention on
evolution by the denial of extraneous possibilities until you are left with
the possible.  Not this, not that.

Evolution is the delineation of levels in existence.  What the levels are,
and their delineation can become a ³not this not that² dialectic, in place
of evolution itself which can only be positive.

Imho evolution identifies levels in existence.  The levels are discrete.
Evolution is indefinable DQ.  I like Bo¹s proposed SOL for focusing on
undefined levels in existence as arbiters of reality rather than ³not this,
not that².  The undefined is frequently wrongly negated.  Evolution cannot
be negative!  It is the discernment of evolution through a dialectic of
³not this not that² that becomes negative when there is no metaphysical
guidance.

[Ham]
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.
 
[Joe]
³History² and ³Process² as change and transition must look to metaphysics
for a rational direction.

³Evolution² is described as an order in existence in metaphysics.  Evolution
becomes the template for morality.  The connection of metaphysics to the
historical realities of revelation and change is through a common sense of
metaphysics MOQ.

[Ham]
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.
 
[Joe]
Movement, evolution, affirms an order in existence.  An individual, within
an order of existence, e. g., one in a mob, does not look to the mob for
individuality.  Evolution portrays levels in existence.  I know of no way to
question this.  Even in my imagination I do not stand outside of levels in
existence, since my imagination can only portray those levels or their
negation.

[Ham]
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.
 
[Joe]
Evolution as an order in existence is not based on ³contrariety² but based
on levels in existence. There is no way to question the reality of
³existence² itself, since we have no platform to stand on.  We can only
negate our own existence to a point, by suicide, which leaves us in a void,
and no way of communicating.

[Ham]
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
 
[Joe]
I can¹t vouch for the truth of what I say when speaking from the seat of my
pants.  Since we don¹t all think alike there is something in individuality.
I like the emotional approach since it is only DQ consciousness.  There is
no SQ emotion.  An idea turns negative through the emotional center changing
the intellectual idea to a negative.  Something is wrong, and instead of
reviewing the intellectual observation, the emotion becomes probative and
mechanical action ensues with no hint of consciousness, e.g. genocide.

Joe  

> 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