[MD] Probability

[Ham Priday]

[Case]
I have always taken Pirsig's terms at face value. Static means fixed
predictable and Dynamic mean changing and unpredictable.

[Ham]
Finally I have a definition I can accept.  I always thought that Static
meant unchanging, and wondered why Pirsig applied it to the evolutionary
world which is constantly in flux.  I also thought Dynamic Quality was
supposed to be the constant immutable source, hence couldn't fathom his use
of Dynamic.  How is it that there are many here who've shared my confusion,
yet have been unble to define it?

[Case]
Life is a series of random events. I seriously can not see how you could
have failed to notice this. Everyday people simply driving home from work
ram into each other and die. Cells randomly run amuck in our bodies and we
get cancer and die. Every week a set of balls gets pulled from a cage and
some lucky stiff hops on the
gravy train. Lucky sperm meets happy egg and lovers become parents. Life
is chaotic. Pretending that it isn't doesn't make it go away.

[Ham]
All right.  Random events generate emotions.  When something goes awry,
we're unhappy.  But how is this significant to philosophy?  The life
experience can never be totally predictable, no matter what we learn from
science and the probability experts.  Is it your philosophical goal to
eliminate unpredictability?

[Case]
You seem to want to ascribe meaning into the universe itself and this just
strikes me as vanity and folly. If for example the universe does have this
infinite purpose, how would be know what it is? Or since you seem to know
let me ask you what is it? Even if you in fact know what it is our can
point to a source like the Bible or the teaching of the Buddha and there
it is all written down. It is still not my purpose unless I adopt it and
begin to live it.

[Ham]
That's right.  We can't know empirically the source of our existence or the
purpose of our life.  But where you see this as a tragedy, I see it as
preserving the autonomy of free choice.  If man had the key to absolute
knowledge, how could he be free to choose for himself?  He would be a mere
robot following a prescribed trajectory.  What purpose or meaning would this
serve?  Would he even bother living?

[Case]
I think you have serious and profound misunderstandings about the nature
of scientific thought.

[Ham]
That's quite possible, insasmuch as I have never worked professonally as a
scientist.  However, I would turn your criticism 180 degrees and suggest
that you have a misunderstanding of the purpose of Philosophy.

[Case]
All conversation about the ultimate purpose of life the universe and
everything strikes me as pointless wishful thinking. I can look at the
world around me and see definite pointers to what I think my own purpose
is and what I believe the purpose of every living thing is but I accept
ownership of this I do not see it as inherent in the external world. It is
not fated or dictated or necessary.

[Ham]
If you took Philosophy 101, you will have observed that it is a history of
hypotheses based largely on speculation.  But it deals with conventions and
concepts that Science doesn't begin to investigate (or recognize), such as
the nature of subjective awareness, the cause and purpose of existence, the
nature of values, or the possibility of transcendence.

[Case]
My chief concern is that we, individually and collectively, adopt purpose.
And typically we are very shallow about doing this. We either accept it on
authority or we just muddle though. Somehow in the process we have
collectively built up the recourses to assume the powers we have always
ascribed to our Gods in the past. I am concerned that we are not going to
be very good at this and unless we can find a better framework to guide
our actions our future looks more like Mad Max than Star Trek.

[Ham]
I happen to agree with those concerns.  Man was born to be free and must
learn to be self-reliant and free-thinking.  The real tragedy is that we
still lean on doctrine and authority after 6,000 years of human history.  We
are still attacked by barbarians who believe it is the Will of Allah to
destroy all infidels.  And we still live as if accumulating wealth, power,
and material things will immortalize our importance.

[Case]
Man is the myth maker. We tell ourselves stories because we respond to
narrative. Personally I think the stock scientific explanation explains
all of the items on your list. I think there is plenty of hard evidence
that much of our behavior individually and collectively is explained as
organic response to uncertainly.

[Ham]
Thus will it always be.  It's the reality of existence, Case.  Sartre said
we are burdened by our freedom in confonting the unknown.  Technology gives
us an ever-flowing stream of new gadgets to play with, but not the wisdom to
use them constructively.  All this demonstrates a need for philosophical
guidance.

[Case]
Perhaps two examples with suffice. In Christianity believers are enjoined
to submit to the will of God and trust in his benevolence. All things work
for good to him who believes. God has an ultimate plan. When you start to
look for the specifics of the plan things get a bit strange. It is highly
subject to interpretation and when it gets down to the specifics of why
God allows this bad thing to happen to me; it gets really fuzzy. But
functionally for the believer putting trust in God relieves you of having
to worry about every little thing. It makes you feel less powerless and
resigns you to your fate. We are more comfortable believing that no matter
what random thing happens it is all working for good. In other words faith
is a response to Chaos.

[Ham]
I am not a believer in a benevolent deity or an inherently moral universe.
That would deny us our freedom and autonomy as individuals.  While blind
faith serves no useful purpose, I believe spirituality is significant and
should not be thrown out with what has been called "religious baggage".
However, spirituality is meaningless without belief in a primary source.
(Witness New Ageism, astrology, multi-dimensionalism, time travel, and
witchcraft.)  The problem, as I see it, is that mankind has overreacted to
the Enlightenment's view that we must wean ourselves from all belief systems
and has established what is largely a mihilistic culture in which and human
values are obsolete and "anything goes".

[Case]
It seems to me you are merely seeking to put a new somewhat sterile face
on this age old problem.

[Ham]
Obviously, I don't see the problem as you do.  I also don't see Essentialism
as in any way sterile.  But you have a right to your opinion; I just don't
know where you expect to go with your emphasis on probability theory.

--Ham