[MD] are theism and mysticism mutually exclusive notions?

[Platt Holden]

Case:

> [Platt previously]]
> If you'll re-read Chapter 11 of Lila I believe you'll see that biology
> did indeed "triumph over inorganic forces," such as gravity. There are
> many quotes about this, but perhaps one will suffice: "Biological
> evolution can be seen as a process by which weak Dynamic forces at a
> subatomic level discover stratagems for overcoming huge static inorganic
> forces at a superatomic level."  The key word here is "overcoming" as
> opposed to "emerging." 
> 
> [Case]
> The most charitable thing I can say about Chapter 11 is that Pirsig was
> trying to dumb it down. If taken seriously, which I don't, Chapter 11
> is... poorly conceived.

If you don't buy Chapter 11 I don't see how you buy the MOQ. Perhaps
you grab the parts of it that happen to agree with your previous 
metaphysical assumptions, not that there is anything wrong with that. 
It's human nature to look for confirmation of what we already believe.  

> [Platt]
> Having worked for an insurance company for many years, I know something
> about mortality tables and such which substitutes certainty for the 
> uncertainty faced by individuals. You can't predict when an individual 
> will die, but you can predict that out of umpity-ump millions of
> individuals, so many will die at age 30, so many at 40, so many at 50,
> etc. I think it's called the law of large numbers. But, I'm not telling
> you anything you don't know . Whether the MOQ can be of help to those
> individuals unlucky enough to die young is doubtful, In fact, I doubt if
> the MOQ can help us cope with uncertainty any more than belief in a
> caring God. However, I will be following your ideas closely to see how
> you tie uncertainty and morality together in a way that increases our
> understanding and explanatory power. 
> 
> [Case]
> So did you do much work with mortality tables? What sorts of tables do
> the insurance companies look at? Do they get the information from their
> own customers or do they share information? I am sincerely interested in
> your take on this.

I wasn't an actuary so didn't work with mortality tables. But it's my 
understanding that the tables they used were a combination of standard 
tables reflecting the American population as well as records of their 
own customers and those of other companies. A hazardous occupation like 
a jockey would be charged a higher premium than normal. Or, if you had 
a history of a killer disease, your rate would go up. Can't tell you 
much more except that insurance companies, using the law of large 
numbers and investing premium dollars they collected into stocks, bonds 
and mortgages usually made money.

> Case earlier:
> > The biggest obstacle that I see in the path of this is the idea that
> > DQ is good.
> 
> [Platt]
> I think it's a mistake to make DQ and change synonymous because then the
> obstacle you bring up cannot be overcome. Rather I see DQ as pure
> awareness which is good per se regardless of what one is aware of. In
> other words, through good times and bad, it's better to be aware than
> not, especially considering the alternative. Since the urge to gain and
> maintain betterness happens to be the case, awareness seeks the better
> of all choices for its own sake. It seeks "the good dog." Or, as Sophie
> Tucker said, "I've been rich and I've been poor." Believe me, honey,
> rich is better." Or, as the Chinese leaders said to the people of China
> after Mao died, "To get rich is glorious." We've seen the consequences
> of that!  In other words, the DQ force is on the inside, not something
> "out there" to be measured or manipulated. 
> 
> But, I could be wrong.
> 
> [Case]
> I thought the point of a metaphysics was to find a set of rules that
> apply no matter what the situation. They should work outside and in.
> Emotion and perception are ever changing or dynamic. They are made
> static in memory and even more so by virtue of repetition and
> association.
> 
> But I could be wrong too.

It's the "within" of things that make up at least half of the world's 
phenomena yet is largely hidden from our ability to see. I can only 
guess at what someone is thinking or what it's like to be a kangaroo.
It's in this realm of privacy and seclusion from prying eyes 
(scientific or otherwise) that indefinable forces operate, like 
willpower and (I believe) DQ.  I think aesthetics is a reflection of 
the "spirit" within, which explains why Pirsig associates DQ  with the 
aesthetic.

But, I could be wrong twice over and then some.

Platt