> > > > [Chris] > > > > Allright, answer me this, just quickly - why can't the explanation > of > > > > a performed action > > > > by an individual be explained only in terms of physical causation? > > > > > > [Platt] > > > "There is always this open end of Dynamic indeterminacy." (Lila, 11) > > > > > > [Krimel] > > > So what you and Pirsig are saying here is, "Ooops"? > > > > [Platt] > > "Ooops" means evolutionary changes occur without purpose. "Dynamic > > indeterminacy" means evolutionary changes occur in response to > something > > better, i.e., towards the "fittest." > > > > The difference is well spelled out in Chapter 11 of Lila which we all > know > > you summarily reject. > > > > [Krimel] > > The word is 'indeterminacy". Look it up. It means that for better or > for > > worse the outcome can not be determined. > > [Platt] > Look up the word "Dynamic" in Lila. It means good. > > [Krimel] > Actually I believe the word is left more or less undefined.
"After many months of thinking about it, he was left with a reward of two terms: Dynamic good and static good, which became the basic division of his emerging Metaphysics of Quality." (Lila, 9) > > [Krimel] > > But yes, Chapter 11 is so full of misconceptions that it is should be > > embarrassing to anyone who wants to take the MoQ serious. > > [Platt] > Obviously you don't take the MOQ seriously. > > [Krimel] > I am seriously embarrassed. Yeah, right. 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/
