Re: MD Evolution

[Matt the Amazing Technicolor Dream Coat]

Andrea:

>Biological evolution shows that (at that level), the actual trend is
>necessarily determined by whether a certain pattern is able to
>perpetuate itself. You may thus consider the goal of the biological
>level as equal to the "direction" (or limit) of its evolution, it seems,
>only if you equate the goal of the biological level as survival (of a
>race). An alternative is if you think that "higher quality" for the
>biological level is supporting intellect. Seeing things in *this*
>perspective, I am somewhat unsatisfied with the resulting "chauvinist"
>antropocentrism of the metaphysics.
>
>
>I also find some discomfort in the consideration that even at the other
>levels, new patterns build on previous ones, so that the ability of a
>pattern to perpetuate itself (or to be persistent) is again relevant to
>the overall evolution of the level. So either you think of this "ability
>to survive" as a parallel feature of patterns that coexist with their
>main feature (value), which makes my hair stand, or you equate "higher
>quality" to "higher ability to survive" for *all* the levels.
>(So it seems, to me).
>

I believe these two paragraphs show the problem you are seeing.  It comes down partially as to where "survival" fits into the picture of the MoQ.  Either "ability to survive" is parallel to value (bleh!) or "quality = ability to survive".  Neither quite seems right to me.  In my last post I mentioned "Survival ... has been a useful pattern" and "Survival is a static latch".  Neither of those seem right either.  I wrote them so I wouldn't get stuck and never send the post.  But looking back, I cringe.

So, correct me if I'm wrong, but the problem we are looking at and focusing on is the placement of "survival".  After the above two paragraphs I quoted, you enter into a very illuminating sketch of the problem of how to comprehend the MoQ, or reality with the MoQ.  (I'm having difficulty labeling what you wrote, but whatever one calls it, it was preceptive.)  The only thing I disagree with, and it might not matter, is your saying that we project the four levels onto the subject/object.  I think it is the other way around.  We sometimes still use "S-O speak" to talk about, well, whatever it is we're talkin' about.  I don't know what to say about that right now, but....

I think we can get at the placement of survival without entering into a horribly cyclical discussion like the above one.  Survival, to me, is an outdated concept.  Any of the above placements of it ("parallel to value", "equated to quality", "static pattern", "static latch") are all ugly.  They don't quite seem right and they don't quite work.  I think it's because "static pattern of value" has survival inherently stuck into it.  Stuck into the "static" part.

And here's where I get stuck.

It took me a half-hour to write the last two sentences and nothing sounds right anymore.  All I have left is a vague notion of where I want to look.  Talk about a "dim apprehension".  (Whitehead)

Well, here's my vague dimmness:  I have a feeling survival is outdated as a concept because of the 4 levels as a whole.  When we apply survival to the Bio-level it looks great.  When we apply it to the Social-level it looks pretty good, too.  When we apply it to the Int-level it looks nasty and when we apply it to the Inorg-level it looks silly.  Richard Dawkins wrote of memes as the self-perpetuating part of the idea (as gene is to bio).  I've also noticed the memes have been talked of extensively here.  Personally, I don't like memes.  They are cold and don't quite sound right.  More of an analogy.  And not a very good one.

When survival is applied to the Inorganic level, it looks silly 'cuz how could "not alive" stuff die?  That's a naive, though.  We can twist survival around make it look like "the perpertuation of stable patterns".  That's what Dawkins did.  But that doesn't sound right either.  I haven't fully explored these possibilities yet, though.

I think my discomfort with survival comes because I don't think we need it in the MoQ.  My vague notion is that it is replaced by "The migration of static patterns of quality toward Dynamic Quality."  That's why the interpretation changes.  Because survival is thrown out.  Kinda' like how "cause" was thrown out for "values precondition".

These musings are highly attackable.  Tomorrow, in fact, I will think I'm a naive pig-dog.  But I say them to spur attack.  Tell me what you think of them.

As a side note, I'm finishing an essay for the Forum (that I've alluded to before) that mentions such things as the values of science, Dawkins' Selfish Gene theory, Behe's biochemical attack on evolution, and Pirsig's cozy metaphysics.  Essentially, I use evolution as a case study for reductionism and mechanistic theory.  I'm not sure to what justice I do to any of those things, but it's fairly preliminary.  The ideas involved are more important to me than the fine points.  But, we shall see.  Perhaps I've said too much.

Squinting in confusion,

Matt