[MD] What Bo Doesn't Get

[Dan Glover]

On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 1:02 PM, Krimel <Krimel at krimel.com> wrote:
>> [Krimel]
>> Evolution doesn't drive anything. It is a description of how patterns
>> adapt in response to change, flux, uncertainty; in other words dynamic
>> quality. Evolution is a reflexive process where the output of one cycle
>> becomes the input for the next.
>
> Dan:
> Dynamic Quality isn't change and uncertainty. Evolution is the process
> of natural selection.
>
> [Krimel]
> I snipped the Pirsig quotes because I have discussed them at length many
> times. In short, Pirsig's understanding of evolution is shamefully wrong.
> This clearly is not his area of expertise and his thinking on the matter was
> way off target even considering the time during which he was writing. Citing
> Pirsig as an "expert" on evolution is just embarrassing.

Dan:
That's a bit hilarious considering we're members of a discussion group
centered around his writings. I cite Robert Pirsig as an expert on the
MOQ, not evolution. I know, I know, you're much more intelligent.
Still waiting for that book of yours though....

>
> But take the sketch you outline about. Natural selection does not mean that
> Mother Nature is gussied up in a nice apron picking and choosing which of
> her offspring deserve to make up the next generation. Natural selection is
> purely and simply a matter of chance. It is static patterns congealing out
> of dynamic and chaotic interactions. If only Pirsig had understood this.

Dan:
So now we should call dynamic quality chaos? Damn that Pirsig. What's
wrong with him?

>
> But just to take a small example from your Pirsig quotes:
>
> "Dynamic Quality is not structured and yet it is not chaotic."
>
> This was "common sense" when Pirsig wrote Lila but any thinking adult today
> should be able to see that it is false. For one thing many things that are
> structured are chaotic. The stock market is highly structured and yet it is
> unpredictable and chaotic on a day to day basis. Structures and patterns are
> subsets of chaos they are not different from or other than chaos. Static and
> dynamic are relative terms that describe a continuum of chaotic behavior.
> That really is the central point of the MoQ. At least an MoQ that actually
> has a contribution to make.

Dan:
In the MOQ, Dynamic and static are not relative terms. I think that is
the central  point of misunderstanding.

>
> [Pirsig]
> "Good! The "undefined fittest" they are defending is identical to
> Dynamic Quality. Natural selection is Dynamic Quality at work. There
> is no quarrel whatsoever between the Metaphysics of Quality and the
> Darwinian Theory of Evolution. Neither is there a quarrel between the
> Metaphysics of Quality and the "teleological" theories which insist
> that life has some purpose. What the Metaphysics of Quality has done
> is unite these opposed doctrines within a larger metaphysical
> structure that accommodates both of them without contradiction."
> (LILA)
>
> Dan:
> Undefined fittest is identical to Dynamic Quality. Not change, not
> uncertainty, not chaos, not any sort of concept at all. Do you see?
>
> [Krimel]
> OK, you suckered me into another of Pirsig's silly quotes from Chapter 11. I
> totally agree that Natural selection is DQ at work. In fact I would say that
> both the MoQ and evolutionary theory are about how static forms come to
> exist and persist under chaotic conditions. If only Pirsig had had the good
> sense to stop there.

Dan:
Well shucks, I'll take what I can get.

>
> [Dan]
> Thanks Krimel, and good to have you back,
>
> [Krimel]
> Thanks Dan, but relax I won't be here long.
>

Me either.

Dan