Hey Steve,
On 26 Jan 2010 at 11:26, Steven Peterson wrote: > > Steve: > > > Likewise there is a tendency for things to fall to the ground. > > Platt: > > Tendency? Seems to me to be more like an inexorable law. > Steve: > It does seem like that, doesn't it? But we can also think of such "laws" as > stable patterns of preference. Platt: Yes, no problem with thinking that way except to recognize there are degrees of stable preference patterns, from rock solid to flimsy. Gravity is at the rock solid end of the scale. > Platt: > > Things don't > > "tend" to fall to the ground. They "do" fall. To say gravity is a tendency > > is > > like saying the sun has a tendency to be the sun. > Steve: > Birds have a tendency to fly rather than falling to the ground like rocks. Platt: Do birds ever escape from gravity? No, they come down to earth like everything else. (Even space probes are eventually captured by gravity's pull.) > Steve: > > > Any > > > nonliving thing will do so, while certain animals actually manage to > > > fly. Noting this fact, Pirsig says, "One could almost define life as > > > the organized disobedience of the law of gravity." The "almost" should > > > make it extremely clear that Pirsig is not suggesting a technical > > > definition of life here. But life notably does oppose certain > > > tendencies while, of course, following physical laws in doing so. > Platt: > > What are the "physical laws" that create and maintain life? > Steve: > I never said that there were such laws, but Pirsig said that inorgnaic > patterns dynamically created biological patterns which dynamically created > social patterns, etc. Platt: I thought he said patternless DQ created new static patterns. > Steve: > > > It > > > needs to invent things like wings or airplanes to outwit natural laws > > > and circumvent such tendencies as the inclination for objects to fall > > > to the ground. Krimel will read "outwit" and "invent" and be very > > > annoyed because someone could read these terms and think of an > > > intelligence guiding evolution. But for those of us who already > > > understand the unguided nature of evolution, why not be astounded by > > > some of the clever solutions that evolution has yielded and use such > > > terms to express our awe? > Platt: > > So evolution is the cause of of life? Well, what is the cause of evolution? > Steve: > Evolution is the broad pattern of history. For Pirsig it is a broad > cosmological concept, not just a scientific theory about biology. Platt: Do you mean by a "broad cosmological concept" a natural universal aspiration towards betterness. If so, we agree. > Platt: > > And, how about an answer to Pirsig's question, "Why survive?" (Notice > > that Pirsig did not invoke the "mu" cop out.) > Steve: > Why are you asking me this? If Pirsig already gave an answer, why not just > say what it was. Do you think I disagree with his answer? Do you disagree > with it? Platt: No, I don't disagree with it, but I'm not sure if you do or not. That's why I asked. Steve: > I can't tell what your general position is here other than you seem to > disagree with everything I say. My position is to seek clarification of your views which I value. If you find that annoying, I apologize. You needn't respond. Regards, Platt 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/
