[MD] Evolution

[Ian Glendinning]

Dan, Mark,

Mark, no-one is pushing or selling the Pirsigian orthodoxy, just
establishing that evolution is part of Pirsig's own MoQ orthodoxy.
It's just not contentious, as I said. Many of us have views where that
orthodoxy can be improved, dare I say - evolved, but the base is
clear.

And, as Dave (T) points out no-one is using evolution "glibly" to use
your word. There are many narrow and broad views of the mechanisms
involved at the different levels.

Dan's very care-ful responses have clear care-ful motives page after page.
As I said once before a long time ago, your motives are not entirely
clear (or honest or genuine) if you refuse the see (even look at) the
basis of the discussions in the original book which is the subject of
this forum.

Ian

On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 5:36 AM, Dan Glover <daneglover at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello everyone
>
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 2:39 PM, 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi Dan,
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 9:35 PM, Dan Glover <daneglover at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hello everyone
>>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 3:27 PM, 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:

>>> Dan:
>>> Again, this is silly. If you don't know the answers to your questions,
>>> you NEED TO READ THE BOOK. Period. I haven't the time to write page
>>> after page explaining the MOQ when it has already been more than
>>> adequately explained by Robert Pirsig in LILA.
>>>