[MD] Chance

[David M]

Hi Krim


Krim: Pirsig is claiming that "cause" implies "absolute certainty" which it 
does
not. He is correct in pointing out the probabilistic, chance, factors that
disrupt "absolute certainty". But his unfortunate use of terms allows you
and David M. and Platt to claim that atoms and rocks have wants and needs
and desires. This phantom "volition" that you describe becomes a "cause" but
it is a "cause' that conveniently can not be observed or studied or have any
effect on outcomes.

DM: That's right. I am suggesting law is a good metaphor for describing
SQ behaviours of organic and inorganic patterns, but DQ happens
too and either we understand this in terms of chance or we might
want to suggest there is more to DQ than chance, as there is more to
human behaiour than chance or law-like habits. Both nature and human
beings are creative and chance is not a full enough description of what
is going on. Exlusive talk of chance and law can be used to understand SQ,
but this leaves us with SOM and neglects the reality of DQ, the whole
point of Pirsig's MOQ.


Krim: It allows an purely naturalistic
universe in which things evolve slowly from the bottom up.

DM: Does anyone here disagree?