----- Original Message ----- From: "Platt Holden" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2008 5:49 AM Subject: Re: [MD] Dynamic within static.
Hi Bo, [Platt] > > Somehow "greater complexity" smacks of a nonexplanation like science's > > magical "emergence." Besides, it omits the role of DQ which, as you > > know, is the central actor in Pirsig's evolutionary morality. [Bo] > Really Platt. Don't you see greater complexity with a mammal > organism than an amoeba? Yes it omits DQ's role (I thought that was > what you too omitted from various events/change witin the static > range?) I just wonder what SQ's role is if everything is DQ? [Platt] The complexity argument strikes me as an example of the Questionable Cause fallacy which involves drawing the conclusion that A causes B simply because A and B are in regular conjunction. As for SQ's role, Pirsig explains the necessity of it. Of that I'm sure you know. mel: You may see a questionable cause, but in the physical world we still have "emergent " behaviors that are real. Take a microgram of U238, study it, watch the decay Take a gram, study it. add a little more... at some point, before you get to a piece the size of a large grapefruit, you no longer need to worry about studying it. Something magical happens--critical mass. The world is full of critical thresholds and it is those that are most interesting, most significant, most dynamic. thanks--mel 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/
