[MD] The difference between a Monet and a finger painting

[plattholden at gmail.com]

On 24 Jan 2010 at 20:34, Steven Peterson wrote:

> Likewise there is a tendency for things to fall to the ground.

Tendency? Seems to me to be more like an inexorable law. Things don't 
"tend" to fall to the ground. They "do" fall. To say gravity is a tendency is 
like saying the sun has a tendency to be the sun.  

> Any
> nonliving thing will do so, while certain animals actually manage to
> fly. Noting this fact, Pirsig says,  "One could almost define life as
> the organized disobedience of the law of gravity." The "almost" should
> make it extremely clear that Pirsig is not suggesting a technical
> definition of life here. But life notably does oppose certain
> tendencies while, of course, following physical laws in doing so.

What are the "physical laws" that create and maintain life?

> It
> needs to invent things like wings or airplanes to outwit natural laws
> and circumvent such tendencies as the inclination for objects to fall
> to the ground. Krimel will read "outwit" and "invent" and be very
> annoyed because someone could read these terms and think of an
> intelligence guiding evolution. But for those of us who already
> understand the unguided nature of evolution, why not be astounded by
> some of the clever solutions that evolution has yielded and use such
> terms to express our awe?

So evolution is the cause of of life? Well, what is the cause of evolution? 
And, how about an answer to Pirsig's question, "Why survive?" (Notice 
that Pirsig did not invoke the "mu" cop out.)

Regards,
Platt