[MD] Chance

[craigerb at comcast.net]

[Ham]
> For one thing, any stated proposition that defies empirical evidence should be
> duly accounted for.  (This would of course include notions like "rocks prefer
> a stationary position." )

Pirsig, Galileo & Newton don't think that it defies empirical evidence.  Instead of
seeing valuing as a human activity that is impossible for rocks, try seeing it as a 
rock activity that is possible for humans.

[Ham]
> That the author is unable to define something doesn't make it fundamental.
> There is no rule that what is fundamental must be undefinable.

But there is.  If a definition serves to analyze, when you get to what's
fundamental, it must be unanalyzable, hence, undefinable.

[Ham]
> I've considered it, but it makes no sense epistemologically.  If I'm 
> comprised of Value -- my body, my mind, my experience -- then I'm only able 
> to recognize what is NOT value.
>  So you have value sensing value, which is a logical tautology.

I'm human but I'm able to recognize what's human.  If this be a "logical tautology",
so be it.
Craig