[MD] relative

Mon Jan 9 15:22:13 PST 2012

Hi Carl,
Besides being situational, it is kind of a meaningless statement.
Survival and fittest cannot be separated from each other.  The fittest
survive because they are the fittest (What?).  Since they survive,
they are the fittest by virtue of survival (What? again!)

A problem that I have had with using the biological definition of
evolution for MoQ is as follows:
Evolution uses a dynamic interaction between the species and the
environment.  The species establishes itself at different levels,
known as "niches" which are provided by the environment, this is
adaptation.  So, by this understanding, Quality would have to be
influenced by some "outside environment" for it to evolve.  I have not
read anywhere about what makes Quality appear as it does.  By the
biological definition of evolution, Quality would have to be
subservient to some greater principle that it could evolve "into".
What is that forceful thing?

The way I read evolution in MoQ, is that Quality evolves into levels
which can be seen as a progression, in hindsight.  The levels, as
presented, are systems within systems, and overlapping sets of
systems, in my opinion (as a biochemist).  Of course the concept of
evolution and levels is for presentation purposes, and uses the
vernacular of the time (which happens to be Evolution in this day and
age).  It would have been presented differently in other times (and
was).

The way Joe uses it (in my interpretation), is that Evolution (as
change) is Quality.  Evolution is not a thing per se, but a process.
Things evolve, so therefore things are moved along by Quality.

Cheers,
Mark

On 1/9/12, Carl Thames <cthames at centurytel.net> wrote:
> I'm a bit curious about this whole evolution thing.  I'm familiar with the
> concept expressed by Darwin, wherein Individual A is born with the gene for
> a longer femur, which allows him or her to chase down food better than
> his/her contemporaries, thereby allowing him or her to surivive longer and
> produce more offspring, all with the gene for a longer femur.  Okay,
> Individual B is born with a gene for a shorter femur, but fortunately for
> him or her, lives in a forest and the shorter femur allows him/her to climb
> trees better, which facilitates getting food, which allows him/her to
> survive longer and produce more offspring, all with the gene for a shorter
> femur.  Is this actually evolution?  The whole 'survival of the fittest'
> thing seems pretty situational.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tuukka Virtaperko" <mail at tuukkavirtaperko.net>
> To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
> Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2012 5:14 PM
> Subject: Re: [MD] relative
>
>
>> Joe,
>>
>>> Joe:
>>>
>>> I am approaching my 80th birthday (lame-brained), and there is no doubt
>>> the
>>> way I express concepts is all over the place.
>>>
>>
>> Tuukka:
>> At least you aren't going to school in the morning like my grandfather,
>> who did that in his seventies. I'm happy my dad likes crosswords because
>> doing them prevents that kind of damage to some extent. Happy birthday
>> when you get there!
>>
>>> Joe:
>>>
>>> The concept of Evolution, something indefinable in the sense of levels in
>>> existence, without appealing to creation, interests me.  Evolution is not
>>> something from nothing, but something embracing a sense of order and
>>> individuality.  I prefer the musical Do,Re, Mi etc. as a model for order.
>>
>> Tuukka:
>>
>> Okay. Then you perhaps even are a mystic. I feel what you mean but don't
>> know it.
>>
>>> Joe:
>>>
>>> I don't know what game we are playing?  I am not good at mysticism.  I
>>> don't
>>> have a mathematical background.  My use of logic is instinctive and I
>>> appeal
>>> to evolution good and bad.  I have no strong feeling for what mysticism
>>> might be or what it might achieve?
>>
>> Tuukka:
>>
>> I feel what mysticism is and what it achieves, but don't know it. I don't
>> know what game we are playing either.
>>
>> Maybe I can say something about mysticism. It is the study of symbols that
>>
>> are extremely general and abstract. Jungian archetypes. I think that's
>> what mysticism is about, to some extent. Other aspects may be undefinable.
>>
>> Wikipedia: "Carl Gustav Jung developed an understanding of archetypes as
>> being 'ancient or archaic images that derive from the collective
>> unconscious'."
>>
>> There are many things one can say about Evolution, and it's maybe indeed a
>>
>> good idea to capitalize that word in this use. But I'd say the Evolution
>> of archetypes has become extremely rapid during the past century or so.
>> The rise seems almost exponential in the amount of archetypes, their
>> relations to each other, and what not.
>>
>> I don't remember what this had to do with recursion in Buddhism, though.
>>
>> It does have one connection, and that is that archetypes are being copied
>> by humans (passed from one to another) and in this process they can also
>> be combined with each other, as to form new archetypes. They may also be
>> modified both intentionally and accidentally. In this way they resemble
>> genes. Genes are modified intentionally by sexual choice and accidentally
>> by mutation. And ultimately, archetypes are information or knowledge, and
>> thus belong to the subject matter of epistemology.
>>
>> It would be interesting to study this kind of Evolution. How one one go
>> about in trying to do it? After all, we live in the subject matter we are
>> studying. It's not like biology, in which you can use your eyes (which
>> consists of cells) to look at other cells, even though your eyes can't see
>>
>> themselves. But if we want to study archetypes, we are, in some way,
>> requiring for our eyes to see themselves. And that is what makes mysticism
>>
>> hard to define.
>>
>> I've studied some mysticism in ancient religious texts, such as the Bible
>> and Gnostic gospels and Norse mythology. Finnish mythology is pretty
>> familiar to every Finn who pays attention in primary school. I would say I
>>
>> didn't understand religion or spirituality at all before I studied Norse
>> mythology and the Gnostic gospels. The Coyote of the Plains Indians is
>> also a personal favorite.
>>
>> Do you find this to be related to the Evolution you were talking about?
>>
>> -Tuukka
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>> -----
>> No virus found in this message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 2012.0.1901 / Virus Database: 2109/4730 - Release Date: 01/08/12
>>
>
> 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
>