[MD] Evolution

[Ham Priday]

On 3/02/10 at 7:58, Joseph Maurer wrote:

> Hi Ham and all
>
> Negation 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 'not this not that'
> 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 'not this, not that'.  The undefined is
> frequently wrongly negated.  Evolution cannot be negative!
> It is the discernment of evolution through a dialectic of
> 'not this not that' that becomes negative when there is no
> metaphysical guidance.

Joe, I'm sorry but none of the above is comprehensible to me.  Having never 
heard the term "negation evolution", I don't know what it is and can only 
say that evolution is 'not that'.

As for "the levels" being discrete and evolution being "indefinable DQ", I 
suppose this represents your interpretation of the MoQ dogma.  Since I don't 
acknowledge the levels hierarchy as anything but an intellectual construct, 
all I can say is that evolution is the process of nature as perceived in 
time and space, not a "dielectic".  As such, its direction can only be 
positive, at least until evolution reaches entropy and switches to 
dissolution.

> 'History' and 'Process' as change and transition must look to
> metaphysics for a rational direction.
>
> 'Evolution' is described as an order [of] 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.

For me Morality is a social order established by man, whereas Evolution is 
the order of nature or the cosmos.  If this is what you're saying, then how 
can evolution possibly be a template for morality?   Are you suggesting that 
the law of the jungle and 'survival of the fittest' should serve as a model 
for human relations?

> 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.

Inasmuch as mobs are formed by individuals, yes, it is unlikely that an 
individual would look to the mob for his/her individuality.  But this gets 
us nowhere, so what is your point?

> Evolution as an order in existence is not based on 'contrariety'
> but based on levels in existence. There is no way to question
> the reality of 'existence' 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.

Again, Joe, I don't speak "levelize" and my life is not guided by the 
precept that physical existence is partly inorganic, partly organic, and 
humanly social.  However, that does not prevent me from questioning the 
reality of existence, nor has the "platform" of finite individuality 
prevented philosophers from coming up with hypotheses to explain it.  The 
"negation" in my hypothesis has an experiential function unrelated to 
negating the self by suicide.  It serves to differentiate our valuistic 
experience of  otherness into the discrete objects and events that 
constitute our being-in-the-world.

> 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.

Do you speak from the seat of your pants often, Joe?  I haven't learned to 
do that  without offending my wife.  (Sorry, I couldn't resist. ;-)

> 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.

Once more your rhetoric eludes me.  You start out by saying the emotions are 
DQ, implying that ideas (intellect?) are SQ.  From then on you've lost me. 
However, it strikes me that "something is wrong" when the word "negation" is 
associated with both suicide and genocide in the same post.  (I do hope you 
will lighten up your dialectic the next time.)

Cheers,
Ham