of chaos:

[Krimel had said]
Chaos:
> I have tried a zillion time to explain this here and seem to have failed.
> Let's try this one from Nietzsche,
>
> "The overall character of the world is, for all eternity, chaos; not 
> in the sense that it lacks necessity, but rather in the sense that it 
> lacks order, articulation , form , beauty , wisdom , and whatever else 
> our aesthetic anthropomorphisms might say." All of those things: lacks 
> order, articulation, form , beauty , wisdom and not discovered in the 
> world around us. They are invented by us in our ceaseless "aesthetic
anthropomorphism.""
>
[Ron]
Chaos, not in the sense that it lacks necessity (Nietzche being a student of
the pre-socratic philosophers) necessity meaning 
 
What we call ‘necessary’ (1) (a) that without which, as a condition, a thing
cannot be. That which cannot be otherwise.
 
 
"But rather in the sense that it lacks order."
 
 
 
 
This is one of those difficult quotes from Nietzche in which the moniker of 
"nilhist"
became attached to him.
 
 
I think on these terms Pirsig diverges with the idea of Dynamic quality being 
the undefined
good (that downside being levels of good in competition as a secondary 
distinction) that
lends greater explanitory power than Nietzches's Chaos. That is not to lessen 
the caution
of anthropomorphism in any way but these ideas fit into an overall explanation 
based on 
the concept of evolution and Nietzches chaos fails to perform in that aim.
Hesiod said "First of things was chaos made, then broadbreasted earth...and love
supreme among mortals".
When confronted with the difficulty of explaining why a thing is of necessity 
he drags the mind
in sideways; in other explanations he uses everything rather than mind to 
account for the facts.
Failing to use the explanation consistantly it lacks persuasive power.
However I think it was hit apon rather well with this statement:
 
 
[Krimel]
Necessity just means thing have to happen in a
certain way and not some other. 
 
[Ron]
Which is to say, wether we like it or not. Shooting a hole in the pure 
anthropomorism
status given to the good in the terms of what we like to call truth.
 
[Krimel]
Pirsig shows a dim apprehension of this, even though he can't resist
anthropomorphizing, when he says, "Biological evolution can be seen as a
process by which weak Dynamic forces at a subatomic level discover
stratagems for overcoming huge static inorganic forces at a superatomic
level. They do this by selecting superatomic mechanisms in which a number of
options are so evenly balanced that a weak Dynamic force can tip the balance
one way or another."

He highlights the affinity, I would say identity of DQ and chaos when he
says, "To cling to Dynamic Quality alone apart from any static patterns is
to cling to chaos." A quote that lies outside the orthodox cannon of the
MoQ. Much like this one: "It doesn't make any sense. It seems to say that
all life is headed toward chaos, since chaos is the only alternative to
structural patterns that a law-bound metaphysics can conceive." 
It is pretty clear that Pirsig doesn't understand chaos the way Nietzsche
and the chaos theorists do, he shares your confusion and you can hear it
when he says, "It doesn't make sense." 
 
[Ron]
Well, remember he has to fit dynamic quality consistantly with the whole
of his system which he does rather well. We can see where and why Pirsig
diverges with Fred but it's not because he is confused about the nature of
chaos but how dynamic quality can include chaos within the explanation of 
a value centered reality and also explain truth, he sees as I stated above, 
chaos 
doesent do the job.
Not even Freds chaos because it does lack necessity in it's explanation 
ultimately.
Despite his preface because I think Fred was reacting to the times and wanted to
speak out towards anthro-centricities in science yet he lacked the explanitory 
power
to apply it in a consistant whole thesis. That is why it was taken as nihlism 
instead
of a re-working of the theory of (percepably) [empiricist mind you]chaotic 
systems
in an effort towards greater clarity and precision in scientific observation 
(truth finding)
and you have to be careful not to undercut that aim in the end which is why he 
made
that preface to begin with I can only presume.
 
..
 
..
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/md/archives.html

Reply via email to