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

[Steven Peterson]

Hi Plat,


> Steve:
> > Likewise there is a tendency for things to fall to the ground.
>
> Platt:
> Tendency? Seems to me to be more like an inexorable law.


Steve:
It does seem like that, doesn't it? But we can also think of such "laws" as
stable patterns of preference.


Platt:

> 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.
>
Steve:
Birds have a tendency to fly rather than falling to the ground like rocks.

Steve:

> > 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.
>

Platt:

> What are the "physical laws" that create and maintain life?
>
Steve:
I never said that there were such laws, but Pirsig said that inorgnaic
patterns dynamically created biological patterns which dynamically created
social patterns, etc.


Steve:

> > 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?
>
>
Platt:

> So evolution is the cause of of life? Well, what is the cause of evolution?
>

Steve:
Evolution is the broad pattern of history. For Pirsig it is a broad
cosmological concept, not just a scientific theory about biology.

Platt:

> And, how about an answer to Pirsig's question, "Why survive?" (Notice
> that Pirsig did not invoke the "mu" cop out.)



Steve:
Why are you asking me this? If Pirsig already gave an answer, why not just
say what it was. Do you think I disagree with his answer? Do you disagree
with it?

I can't tell what your general position is here other than you seem to
disagree with everything I say.

Best,
Steve