[MD] Choosing Chance

[skutvik at online.no]

Hi Case 

23 Jan. u wrote (to Steve):

> You have missed my point. In the passage you quote Pirsig is on the
> verge of actually seeing the full implications of the ideas he is
> toying with. But he misses it. He turns away. This is a big part of his
> failure to grasp evolution as well. But, if we could be allowed to
> forgive him for not seeing a bit farther than he did, if we could stop
> apologizing for him; the MoQ contains within it ideas that provide a
> metaphysical foundation both for evolution and complexity theory.
> Unfortunately, those like apologists like me, who want to simply
> express regret for what he missed and move forward, are drowned out by
> apologists who keep quoting him and trying to rationalize his short
> comings. I say those of that ilk are doing no service to Pirsig or the
> MoQ. Krimel 

What you and Steve discuss (randomness or chance) may not 
directly be compared to my "bone" but one passage of yours truck a  
chord in me.  

    The MoQ contains within it ideas that provide a metaphysical 
    foundation both for evolution and complexity theory. 
    Unfortunately, those like apologists like me, who want to 
    simply express regret for what he missed and move forward, 
    are drowned out by apologists who keep quoting him and 
    trying to rationalize his short comings  

Exactly! The MOQ contains the metaphysical foundation for 
revolution in all fields (my pet is Artificial Intelligence) but Pirsig's 
retreat to a somish variety - the Quality/MOQ metaphysics that 
overrides the MOQ - robs it of its revolutionary power, and the 
apologists  

    "...who keep quoting him and trying to rationalize his short 
    comings. I say those of that ilk are doing no service to Pirsig 
    or the MoQ.     

Couldn't have said it better. Now, I guess you'll rather be seen dead 
than agreeing with Bo so I brace for a harsh rebuttal. However to 
highlight the issue I point to Steve's  

Steve:
> Do you have any evidence that Pirsig ever toyed with the idea of a
> Metaphysics of Randomness? If you were referring to this passage
> below, I think a re-reading will clear up your misconception:

Listen Steve, there are many candidates for "reality", many grand 
concepts that are unassimilable in SOM. Up through the MD there 
have been suggested many "groundstuffs" other than quality, why not 
"randomness". I use to say that Quality comprises all, but I don't really 
see the revolution of the Quality=Reality axiom. SOM hasn't anything 
which is S/O split, it simply postulates one subjective and one 
objective realm. Thus MOQ simply postulates one dynamic and one 
static realm. Can you, Steve, point to any practical difference 
between Dynamic Quality and Dynamic Reality? 

It is the pesky Quality on top (in the MOQ diagram) - then 
dynamic/static split, which is the source of all trouble. Dynamic 
Quality (or Dynamic Reality) has all the qualities (adjectives) he 
heaps on it, however it has spawned the known static layers that are 
definable, knowable ..etc.  I just can't fathom the wisdom behind 
making Quality something else than the DQ of the MOQ as if words is 
the great Satan *). Another fallacy is using "metaphysics" in the 
Aristotelian (dialectical) sense after he himself realized that there is 
no universe outside an ordered universe. i.e metaphysics in the 
Pirsigean sense.

Does not Pirsigs words about Quality's aloofness hurt its 
untouchability, and thus require another super-duper MOQ and 
another and another "ad infinitum"? 



Bodvar