[MD] What Bo Doesn't Get

[Dan Glover]

On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 10:11 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.
>
> [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:
Fair enough. Let's trot it around the track: evolution is how patterns
adapt in response to change, or dynamic quality (small case default)
in other words. Patterns change, sure, but the change is one way. They
wear down. Eventually they go ka-put. There's got to be more to it...

Okay, here, maybe this will help: Evolution is a reflexive process
where the output of one cycle becomes the input for the next. One door
opens and another closes, sure that makes sense. But still, I can't
help but feel something is missing. What is it?



>
> [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:
I think this is wrong. The old adage that if you put a bunch of
monkeys behind keyboards long enough that eventually one will write a
Shakespearean sonnet is pure and simple bullshit. The creationists use
it all the time. You know that.

>
> 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.

Dan:
I know you've had a beef (they eat horses in France though... come to
think of it, that should solve John's concerns about homeless equines)
with Pirsig's take on evolution but I've never understood exactly why.
It always seemed a bit like sour grapes to me.

Robert Pirsig is from a different generation than I am and probably
you as well. I fail to see how that negates his point of view,
however. He is clear that chaos is not what he's talking about when he
says Dynamic Quality. I suggest it's your misunderstanding and not
his. Like Bo, I sometimes think you're reading more into it than there
is.

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

Dan:
If by according him a modicum of respect is a disservice, then I am guilty.

>
> 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?

Dan:
The terms are relative in that they're both intellectual patterns of value.

Or that there is
> something, anything, that is Absolutely impossible?

Dan:
Absolutely not.

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

Dan:
So you're saying all there is is static quality. Dynamic quality is
only a synonym for change. If we don't understand it now, it's only a
matter of time until we do.

That's not right. And I don't know. I guess that's all I can say about that.

>
>> [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.

Dan:
Oh you know me... I pop in from time to time but like a good guest I
never stay long.

Dan