[MD] For Peter

[Ham Priday]

Greetings, Krimel --

Thanks for supplying this contested statement that I was unable to find in 
my e-mail box and had asked Platt to locate for me.

> Evolution as a general principle is about how these static patterns
> or strange attractor arise spontaneously and persist across time in
> relationship to one another. One might say the evolution is "pulled"
> toward these strange attractors or spontaneously arising
> configurations of order. But as you are well acquainted with
> Prigogine I am a bit taken aback that you have not commented on
> the significance of this yourself.
>
> Since the MoQ consistently refers to static patterns and levels of
> static patterns I do not see the problem with attempting to
> understand in a bit more depth just what they are and where they
> come from. Neither do I see how the assumption that nature is
> patterned or orderly implies SOM or is inconsistent in the slightest
> with the MoQ. There is nothing in this that implies subjects or
> objects or even makes reference to patterns of "what".
> The principles hold whether we are talking about patterns that are
> extended in space and time or whether they are patterns of thought
> extended perhaps only in time. In an abstract sense they do no
> even require an observer. ...

I would disagree with the last sentence, if your meaning is that the 
patterns (objects) require no observer.  Otherwise, this is a thoughtful and 
lucid analysis of objective experience, a.k.a. SOM.

You continue ...

> They are merely relationships of figure (SQ) and ground (DQ)
> or relationships among distinctions, perhaps. Metaphysically all
> this is patterned SQ and unpatterned DQ as distinctions in
> undefined and otherwise unknowable Quality.
>
> Pirsig call these relationships Values so you might conceive of a
> distinction as a relationship between different Values of Quality.
> I have never liked these terms even dating back to my first
> reading of ZMM. I am forced to continually translate them into
> more sensible terms; Value in its sense of quantity or relative
> dissimilarity and Quality of course as Tao.

Pirsig's use of Value is certainly more than a "term".  The sense of Quality 
or Value is the very foundation of the MoQ.  And, for your information, it 
is also the ground of experiential reality in my own thesis.  But value 
sensibility requires a cognizant subject--and that, unfortunately, is what 
both you and Pirsig dismiss.  To have a cognizant subject with something to 
value also presupposes a cause or source that transcends existence.  This, 
too, has not been acknowledged, which means that you stand in violation of 
the 'ex nihilo' principle.  But, in keeping with the postmodern nihilism 
that scorns any concept of a primary source, I'm sure the illogic of your 
position doesn't cause you to lose sleep at night.

Back on 8/26 you responded to my quoted excerpts from Apologetics Press, as 
follows:

> So let me get this straight in an effort to "...to see what the
> scientific objectivists themselves had to say on the matter."
> You turn to Apologetics Press? This is a fundamentalist
> Christian printing house.

I confess to not knowing this at the time.  The quotations were edited by 
two Ph.Ds, which I assumed to be scientists, and the bibliographical 
references were eminent and well-known scientific researchers.  The only 
mention of God was in relation to  phenomena whose existence could not be 
objectively be accounted for.  I did not see this as particularly 
"religious".  Your Eccles quotation bears out Apologetics' point:

"The arguments presented by [American biologist H.S.] Jennings preclude me
from believing that my experiencing self has an existence that merely is
derivative from my brain with its biological origin, and with its
development under instructions derived from my genetic inheritance. If we
follow Jennings, as I do, in his arguments and inferences, we come to the
religious concept of the soul and its special creation by God....

"I cannot believe that this wonderful divine gift of a conscious existence
has no further future, no possibility of another existence under some other,
unimaginable conditions (1967, p. 24, emp. added).

Neither can we!"

I'm happy to add Eccles to the list of scientific "believers".  Thanks for 
the quotation and your response.

Regards,
Ham.