[Krimel]
I like to call it uncertainty. But I'm in.
[Arlo]
I think chance, uncertainty, probability, possibility... all
correlate with DQ. As does "absence of complete knowledge". I think
we all have preferred words for this, but this idea I find is
inescapable regarding DQ.
[Krimel]
I'd say almost all responses to change involve uncertainty.
[Arlo]
ALMOST all? I'd say all flat out. Admittedly, sometimes uncertainty
may be reduced to exponentially approaching "zero", but I don't think
any response, on any level, is ever 100% certain. Something like
99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999...9999999% is likely
the best we can do.
[Krimel]
You never know what might happen on the way from here to there.
[Arlo]
Nope, and that's DQ right there.
[Krimel]
"Dynamic response." Holy shit, DUCK!"
[Arlo]
Hehe. Nitpicking here, but I'd say there are no "dynamic responses"
either (just like "static responses"). There are "responses" to
dynamic quality, and some become so probable as to appear to us as
static patterns.
And even this isn't exactly right. Quality IS the response. And some
responses are simply more probable than others, in a huge sea of
interweaving variables and competing forces.
[Krimel]
The fact that all humans everywhere are able to involuntarily
communicate these emotions, both the good ones and the bad ones,
suggests that they have been common to our ancestors for a very long time.
[Arlo]
My point was that what may seem "horrible" from our vantage may not
be "horrible" from other vantages. Take Pirsig's germ and extend it
to a plague. What that germ is doing is "horrible" only from the
perspective of human beings. From ITS perspective, it's just
following its own path, responding to DQ within its own probability
field (if I may steal your term). That you are repulsed from dog shit
has nothing to do with the same event from the dog's perspective. Or
from the plants which depend on that for fertilizer.
When Platt says basically "DQ doesn't make bad things happen", it
points to a cosmos ordered to respond to man's vantage point. DQ
doesn't cause the plague, because the plague is "bad" from man's
vantage point. Thus, DQ takes "man's side" on things. And that's just
cornball philosophy.
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/
