Hi Krimel.
On 3/11/13, Krimel <[email protected]> wrote:
> [carrie]
> hi ron,
>
> [Krimel]
> Hi welcome aboard but as you can see I am Krimel. Ron is X.
Oh god. Introduce myself and then spill my drink, all in the same
gesture. I do that a lot, actually. Glad to meet you Krimel, and
sorry for the faux pas.
> [Krimel]
> The terms chaos and randomness do not mean that things happen for no reason
> or are not determined. If you flip a coin the outcome will be random, and
> yet entirely determined by the laws of physics.
[carrie]
Ok. hmm. is random a technical-logical mathematical description?
And thus any human factor, which repeated over millions of times,
would reveal a pattern that falls short of pure randomness,
disqualifies the whole event.
Or, is random just a subjective term, meaning you can't predict what
will happen?
[Krimel]
> At least that is one way to
> put it and a way that Nietzsche wouldn't. He had an aversion to the whole
> idea of causal chains of determinism. Determinism by the mid-1880's was
> claiming that if we knew the position and velocity of every particle in the
> universe we could calculate the entire history of the universe both past
> and
> present. This was articulated by Laplace who when, asked about God,
> replied,
> "I have no need of that hypothesis."
> Nietzsche wasn't buying the God hypothesis either but he thought science
> was
> no better. In fact his chief complaint against science was that after
> having
> disposed of the theological Absolute, science was doing nothing more than
> building a new set of Absolutes in the form of the "Law of Science."
> Nietzsche thought this was absurd because every Absolute formulation did
> little more than answer questions asked in a purely human voice.
[carrie] yes, well, he was operating from a subject object
perspective, was he not? Just because an absolute is human, is not
proof that it's non-existent. In fact, rather the opposite. The law
of gravity could equally be called the absolute of gravity. As it's
the bedrock of our understanding of the way the physical universe
flies. Maybe one day there will come a unifying theory, and then
we'll have a new absolute. I'd have no problem with that. But then,
I have no problem believing in ghosts, either.
[Krimel]
How could
> such a fleeting beings expect satisfaction from Absolute answers. That is
> what he meant by "aesthetic anthropomorphism." We only ask human question
> and we only get human answers. It is a bit like the drunk looking for his
> car keys under a street lamp because that is where he finds enough light to
> see.
> This, Nietzsche thought was as just as absurd for the scientist as the
> drunks.
[carrie] but it makes more sense, to seek where you can see. At least
you'll have eliminated a wide circle as you go. Isn't that pragmatic?
To ask human questions and get human answers? What other kinds could
we ask? What other kinds would we need?
But I sound like I'm arguing and I don't want to do that. I'm just
poking for answers, as you said I could. )
[Krimel]
Nietzsche thought the "universe" the entire cosmic order was
> meaningless and purposeless. But he thought that eventually people could
> come to understand how liberating and joyous this could be.
[carrie]
he sounds kind of emo. but what do I know?
[Krimel]
> This is what he means by chaos, meaningless and devoid of purpose. But
> chaos
> is not without necessity. Necessity just means thing have to happen in a
> certain way and not some other. In this way "chains of causality" are
> replaced with webs or networks of influence. To use another alcohol related
> example: in Newton's world physical and mathematical laws determine how
> billiard balls will bounce around and collide on a pool table. But for
> Nietzsche these laws cannot determine the outcome of a game of pool.
> Winning
> a game of pool does involve certain physical and mathematical relationships
> but is also influenced by the amount of alcohol consumed in proposition to
> the attractiveness of the spectators, or the amount of light available in
> the bar and the volume of the Jukebox in fact everything in the environment
> of the pool table has some influence on who wins.
[carrie]
well, I agree that the way the ball bounces in a pool game, is a
universe of causation, and not merely what occurs on the table. But
Mr. Nietzche just seems to be brandishing about metaphysical realism,
only in complicated terms. "meaningless and devoid of purpose" is
exactly how science looks at nature. And the laws of cause and effect
having an objective reality... well, we know that's not true, now,
don't we? Quantum mechanics, the tao of physics, all that stuff?
[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.
{carrie}
well that is interesting. not just the quote, but there's an orthodox
cannon. Sounds religious! Is the creed and practice of the MoQist
online somewhere? Or is the knowledge bequeathed in levels, like with
scientology? (jk)
[Krimel]
>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." The same dim apprehension and
> withdrawal are also here: "a 'Metaphysics of Quality' is essentially a
> contradiction in terms, a logical absurdity. It would be almost like a
> mathematical definition of randomness.
{carrie}
ohhhh. I see. You can't have a mathematical definition of randomness,
because it would have to be formulaic and anything formulaic can't be
random! That's funny. and interesting.
But while quality is defined as undefinable, we all do have an idea of
what it means to do good. And what it means to just randomnly do any
old thing. We have common understanding of the terms that seems to
say they are opposite one another.
[Krimel]
>The more you try to say what
> randomness is the less random it becomes."
> I would say he gets it right both times and just wanted to avoid
> terminology
> likely to produce the kind of confusion you experienced.
[carrie]
thank him for me. I appreciate it.
[Krimel]
But I don't claim
> to speak for Pirsig only to voice my reading of him. As you will soon see
> this is likely to provoke a chorus of sycophants reading from their
> catechism.
>
> Never-the-less, I hope that helped.
> By the way, thanks for noticing the poem in the other thread. Anytime you
> see poetry in my posts the author is really Case. He is a Bard and jumps in
> from time to time when I am not looking. I am a Wizard and have little
> patience for such vagary. But in the off chance that you were sincere and
> because you mentioned it Case has urged me to include what follows with a
> brief explanation. I only agreed because it does sort of get to the issue
> at
> hand. Generally speaking I prefer to just blow stuff up.
>
[carrie]
:-)
[Krimel]
> This is about a communal ritual of prayer to the Goddess of Chaos and
> Discord, Eris, the patron of the followers of the Discordian Revelation. A
> dervish is a Sufi Mystic. I think they smoke a lot of hash and spin around
> in circles. The last line is an allusion to the quote Horse used to attach
> to the end of his e-mails.
> You might try reading it out loud...
>
> Tossing a coin before the Rose Bowl
> Is a communal prayer to Eris.
> The spinning coin../\/\/.o0o.o0o.o0o.
> That```
> That---
> That___
> Deterministic'''
> Dynamic;;;
> Dervish,,,
> Dancing:::
> For the... Goddess of Strife.
> Watch!
> You might See
> A sphere of edges;
> The concentric radii of milling
> Mirrored glimmers of
> Stadium light...
> Reflected colored jerseys...
> Mascots and totems...
> A shimmering skin of photons
> The texture of all likelihoods
> Rolled into a ball.
> In spin
> Head and tail
> Become One.
> Mullet?
>
> When Eris has had her way with him
> The Dervish lies spent.
> Between the wrist and palm of the
> Field's highest moral authority.
> The call to Eris is made;
> A question asked by the Assembled;
> Pledged to her will.
> Every fan calls to her in a different way.
> Lokiiii
> Lilithhhh
> Lady Luckckckck
> Anansiiii
> Buddhaaaa
> Motherrrrr
> Puck
> In this ecumenical moment,
> All prayers are answered.
> There's consensual satisfaction.
>
> The deed of the Dervish
> Is a ritual deed.
> His spinning for a communal need.
> To grant a boon
> To steal a choice
> We must speak
> With a Common Voice
> So the Dervish prays of Eris
> That she take her leave
> And all the Strife and Discord
> Hidden up her sleeve.
> The Ref gestures the will of Eris.
> A Stadium of supplicants
> Shout praises to
> She who fixes Fate.
> The Ref pockets the dervish;
> A piece of loose change
> Clinking, "Wow, what a ride!"
>
CLAC (clapping loudly and cheering) Thank you mr Krimel, for sharing
Mr. Case. Marvelous! I'm so glad I joined. Thanks for a delightful
conversation and a wonderful poem. My favorite is Jorge Borges, but
your Case has a gift.
Carrie
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
