[Krimel]
I think Pirsig and certainly many of the MoQers do not really get how
interesting this is.
DM: On this I think we are very close.
[Krimel]
Well we wouldn't want that to happen.
[Krimel cont.]
Note Pirsig's dismissal of the idea that the MoQ would be a metaphysics of
randomness. Boy, he missed the boat by not running with that idea.
{Ron]
I agree, a metaphysics of randomness would be more accurate and would not
elude
To misinterpretation that the term "moral" may imply. Fact is we just do
not know.
An inter-related system of dynamic value is about as close as we can get
On any sort of concept. I dunno, I get what others say about it but maybe it
is my
Preconception that makes me fidgety over "moral" or "betterness" ... I just
have a hard time with the idea that this is all headed somewhere. 'Good'
seems to me is what is most suitable for survival
That which secures continuance in the value field as currently manifested.
[Krimel]
I actually thought he did make a metaphysics of randomness:
Quality can not be defined because it is probabilistic.
It has two properties Static and Dynamic.
Something static has a high probability of continuing as it is.
Something dynamic has a low probability of continuing as it is.
Experience is always in the instant where all probabilities are resolved.
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/
