[MD] MD Chaos and its role in Evolution

[Case]

[DM]
I sympathise with this view of DQ but would add that the levels are created
because some quality choices are made about what ceases to be poissible and
becomes actual.
This is what human beings do and I think is not confined to them in nature.

[Case]
OK but I also have problems with the whole levels thing and avoid
discussions involving them. Pirsig performs a service in recognizing that
different levels, or dimensions, come to play in any given situation. But to
say that there are only four levels, that matter, is wrong in my view. Any
situation should be evaluated in terms of what elements play a causal role
and how do they interact. This is also my objection to Dupree's analysis of
disunity. Physics may be seeking an analysis of how matter and energy can be
reduced to some as yet undefines monism. But ecology begins with an analysis
of what factors are even important to consider. The determination of and
study of these factors is a reductionist program. It may also be possible to
analyze ecological factors into component parts and so forth and so on. I
believe what you find in this process is self similarity across scale. That
is, whatever level you choose to look at will display complex interactions
among the component parts whether these are physical or mental constructs.

Beyond this whenever a possibility becomes an actuality, it impacts related
probabilities. The history of these interactions is called the present. Or
as I have been saying in my thread with Scott: The "Now instant" is where
all probability is at 100%. This is to say, the instant of absolute
certainty. Every other instant, past and future, contains within it elements
of uncertainty.

As for what humans do, this is an area of fundemental difference between
those advocating eternal consciousness and those advocating emergent
consciousness. (Please, note I use the term consciousness but have no idea
what it is supposed to mean, I use it to refer to the collection of fuzzy,
touchy feely concepts.). I maintain that awareness, purpose, consciousness
etc. emerge and evolve. As a consequence We are the source of purpose and
value in the universe it did not exist until we got here.

> DM
> I do not think this limitation of value would be acceptable to what the 
> MOQ
> is saying. Do you disagree with the MOQ here?
>
> [Case]
> I don't think I disagree with the MoQ in this particular respect. Value,
> while equated by Pirsig with Quality, really seems to me to be about the
> perception of Quality. I do however strongly disagree with the commonly 
> held
> notion among MoQers that DQ is Good. In my view DQ is good sometimes and 
> bad
> sometimes. Sunny weather in the South is Good. Hurricanes are Bad. This is
> why I view Quality as the realm of what's possible or Chance.
>
>> |DM
>> Is order an accident? Is there no value to order?
>>
>>
>> [Case]
>> Hmmm, order is an accident, yes. But it is inevitable. Order must occur 
>> in
>> chaos.
>>
>> But since Chaos seems to have as may negative connotations as Quality has
>> positive ones; I am willing to call it Chance.
>>
>> Value arises in the realtionship between the observer and observed.