DM: That's right. I am suggesting law is a good metaphor for describing SQ behaviours of organic and inorganic patterns, but DQ happens too and either we understand this in terms of chance or we might want to suggest there is more to DQ than chance, as there is more to human behaiour than chance or law-like habits. Both nature and human beings are creative and chance is not a full enough description of what is going on. Exlusive talk of chance and law can be used to understand SQ, but this leaves us with SOM and neglects the reality of DQ, the whole point of Pirsig's MOQ.
[Krimel] Obviously I think that probabilistic explanations are more than up to the task and that talking about DQ _is_ talking about chance. When, here and elsewhere, you ascribe volition to DQ I think it is misguided. I don't think it is a useful or enlightened way to think about things. In fact I think it is useless, illusory and flatly obscures what is going on. Krim: It allows an purely naturalistic universe in which things evolve slowly from the bottom up. DM: Does anyone here disagree? [Krimel] I suspect some do but do they? Anyone? Anyone? 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/
