> > [Krimel previously]
> > The absurdity results from clinging to a 19th
> > century view of causality.
> > Particles obey probabilistic laws. So do
> biological
> > organisms.
>
> [SA previously]
> Krimel, I'm glad to see that somebody else views
> this quote of Pirsig in the light you do. Also,
> Pirsig discusses, it might be in this very chapter
> quoted above, how cause can be replaced with value
> and
> it doesn't subtract from the meaning, but actually
> enhances the meaning of what is happening.
>
> [Krimel]
> I like to think that Pirsig simply was unaware of
> some of these things and
> that while he saw some of the issues he was not
> prepared to deal with them.
I completely agree. Pirsig laid the groundwork
for some issues, and for other issues it may have been
more accidental due to the initial pebble in the pond
analog.
[Krimel]
> Given the improvements in our understanding of
> probability and chance it is
> certainly possible to develop a metaphysics of
> randomness. His use of Taoism
> as the basis for the MoQ at least puts him on the
> right path. But since he
> elects to ignore these MoQ discussion it is hard to
> say what he thinks. We
> only know what he thought.
Yes, "...it is hard to say what he thinks. We
only know what he thought." I would say due to
qualities broad inclusionary tendency randomness finds
traction and is traction in a orientation (in light)
of value. Just like everything that has and will be
according to the moq's evolutionary take.
SA
____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
