[MD] Chance

[Ham Priday]

Hi Platt, Arlo --


 [Platt]
> How else could animals respond other than at the molecular level?

 [Arlo]
> So now your claim is that only the cat's molecules responded at
> one point to DQ, but not the cat. Is that correct?

[Platt]
> Do you think a cat  responds to DQ? If so, how would you know?
> What would a cat do to demonstrate such a response?

[Arlo]
> Anytime a cat responds to "it's better here" it is responding to DQ. A 
> cat,
> however, can only respond biologically to DQ, so it lacks the social and
> intellectual repertoire of responses "man" has available.

[Platt]
> A cat's response to betterness is simply a result of a cat's
> preprogrammed value system we normally call instinct.
> It's a static pattern having no ability to respond to the creative
> "source of all things" and the "cutting edge of progress."
> Pirsig warned against what you apparently support -- making
> biological quality equivalent to Dynamic Quality. But since you
> disagree with him on so many issues, this comes as no surprise.

I've followed this dialogue with interest, hoping that one of you would see 
the confusion that Pirsig's terms have caused in your arguments.  As I 
understand it, Dynamic Quality is Value in the absolute metaphysical sense, 
while Static Quality is a reference to particular (i.e. relative) values. 
If my interpretation is correct, then we needn't speak of DQ as having 
anything to do with choices or preferences as exhibited by inorganic or 
organic entities, inasmuch as no finite organism experiences it.  Existence 
is a relational system, and the sense of value in this world is always 
relative with respect to the individual organism.

Response, as you are both using the world, represents behavior.  Thus, the 
rock that rolls down the hill responds to the force of gravity, not to value 
or quality.  Electrons circle the nucleus of an atom according to physical 
laws, not because they value a positive charge.  On the other hand, a dog 
will growl if threatened by another creature.  This is an instinctive 
response to danger, which may be perceived as a "negative" value.  Likewise, 
a cat may exhibit a preference for raw fish rather than meat, again because 
of the nutritive value of this food to its organic well-being.  As Platt 
points out, these "deterministic" values are indigenous to the 
"preprogrammed value system we normally call instinct."

Only man has the discriminative sensibility and judgment to choose value as 
an aesthetic, moral, or rational motive for action.  Yes, that makes man 
"special".  It also affords him a purpose for living beyond the biological 
goals of self-defense, propagation, and survival of the species.  As for the 
order of the universe, and the laws that govern it, these are of value to 
intelligent creatures who can use such principles to their advantage. 
Whatever teleology we ascribe to evolution and the physical world comes from 
man's innate value sensibility, not from some "higher level of intellect" 
called DQ.  Man's mind and feelings are uniquely attracted to order and 
symmetry in the universe, which is what makes him a valuistic creature.

If there is an intelligent design to the universe, it is man's value sense 
that gives it being.  As Platt knows, I maintain that objective reality as 
we know it is the product of human experience.  It is a reality that 
represents the (pre-intellectual) values that man differentiates, 
intellectualizes, and actualizes as 'being-in-the-world'.  Quantitatively it 
is the same for all of us; qualitatively, however, it is a proprietary 
experience.  Hegel called experience "appearance" and explained it as a 
double-negation -- "the negation of the negation of Being."  He was talking 
about the negation of otherness performed by the negated self, as opposed to 
the primary negation which is the denial of nothingness that actualizes 
existence as a dichotomy.  Man brings value into existence as differentiated 
being, and the "music of the spheres" represents the values to which he is 
attuned.  That's why I've insisted that existence is an anthropocentric 
reality.

As you see, I don't claim adherence to Pirsig's philosophy.  But please 
don't let my ideas interfere with your debate.

Best regards,
Ham