[MD] What Bo Doesn't Get

[Krimel]

>> [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.

[Krimel]
Sorry, I thought you were trying to make a point where Pirsig's writing
leads to none. But at least we agree that Pirsig is no expert on evolution.
I am by no means the only one to have noted Pirsig's deficiencies on these
points.

[Dan]
Still waiting for that book of yours though....

[Krimel]
Thanks for your patience.

> [Krimel]
> 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?

[Krimel]
That's what I have been saying for 4 years. I suspect it is because he
didn't understand chaos. This is not surprising since much of his thinking
seems limited to the years prior to his break down. It is not just in the
area of evolution where he quotes 50's era Mayr and De Chardin. But in
anthropology were he quotes Benedict and Boaz with no mention of say Levi
Strauss, Whorf or Bateson.

I think you do Pirsig a disservice by reading him uncritically.

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

[Krimel]
I think it is central to someone's misunderstanding. Are you suggesting that
anything at all is absolutely static and unchanging? Or that there is
something, anything, that is Absolutely impossible?

If not then static and dynamic are indeed relative terms. I would say
guesstamits of probability.

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

[Krimel]
Here's hoping you mean that in John's "philosophical" sense.