[MD] Chance

[Arlo Bensinger]

[DM]
Inanimate DQ, well I have read that new crystals (DQ) of new 
materials take longer to form than once they have been knocking 
around a few years (become SQ), is that an example of DQ at lower levels.

[Arlo]
It may be. As I said, it's not like we're looking for atoms that can 
read or write poetry. But this demonstrates a critical first 
question, what does a response to Dynamic Quality look like? My 
contention is that anytime anything happens because of "betterness", 
it is a response to DQ.

Pirsig says in LILA, "Dynamic  Quality is the pre-intellectual 
cutting edge of reality." He then uses a hot stove example clarify. 
"When the person who sits on the stove first discovers his 
low-Quality situation, the front edge of his experience is Dynamic."

Now I ask you, place a cat on that hot stove. Does not the following 
description also apply to that cat? "He does not think, "This stove 
is hot," and then make a rational decision to get off. A "dim 
perception of he knows not what" gets him off Dynamically."? My 
answer is it most certainly applies to that cat.

In ZMM, Pirsig offers a similar example using an amoeba. "An amoeba, 
placed on a plate of water with a drip of dilute sulfuric acid placed 
nearby, will pull away from the acid (I think). If it could speak the 
amoeba, without knowing anything about sulfuric acid, could say, 
'This environment has poor quality.' If it had a nervous system it 
would act in a much more complex way to overcome the poor quality of 
the environment. It would seek analogues, that is, images and symbols 
from its previous experience, to define the unpleasant nature of its 
new environment and thus 'understand' it." (ZMM)

What's important to note is that in all three cases (man, cat, 
amoeba) the primary, initial response is Dynamic.

Now, what I've also been saying is that how anything responds to DQ 
is constrained (and afforded) by the repertoire of responses its 
level (and complexity within that level) offers. The man and the cat 
"jump", because they have legs and bones and muscles and such. The 
amoeba pulls away using its own biological components.

Also, importantly, notice the key words in Pirsig's statement, "If it 
had a nervous system it would act in a much more complex way to 
overcome the poor quality". An amoeba lacks the components for a more 
sophisticated response to this Dynamic Quality. It is bounded by the 
repertoire of responses of its particular biological/inorganic 
complexity. A "man" WOULD seek analogues, write songs about it, etc, 
because AFTER the initial response to Dynamic Quality, "man" has a 
repertoire of responses that DOES include a nervous system, as well 
as social and intellectual responses.

Back to the hot stove example, Pirsig concludes, "Later he generates 
static patterns of thought to explain the situation." First and 
foremost is the Dynamic response, the "it's better here", a response 
that certainly is dependent on the level/complexity of the pattern, 
but also in the moments afterwards, these responses to Dynamic 
Quality are mediated by the repertoire of responses available to the 
pattern. Man writes music, cats plop down in warm sunlight, atoms 
give off energy... these are all responses to Dynamic Quality, 
responses limited by (and made possible by) the particular level of 
evolution and level of complexity of the pattern in question.

As I said to Platt, it's not that anything "lost" the ability to 
respond to Dynamic Quality, its that the increasing complexity and 
emergent levels of evolution have brought about phenomenal NEW ways 
higher patterns can respond to Dynamic Quality.