[MD] Chance

[Marsha]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Krimel" <Krimel at Krimel.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 2:16 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Chance


> 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.
>
> [Krimel]
> Obviously I think that probabilistic explanations are more than up to the
> task and that talking about DQ _is_ talking about chance. When, here and
> elsewhere, you ascribe volition to DQ I think it is misguided. I don't 
> think
> it is a useful or enlightened way to think about things. In fact I think 
> it
> is useless, illusory and flatly obscures what is going on.
>
> Krim: It allows an purely naturalistic universe in which things
> evolve slowly from the bottom up.
>
> DM: Does anyone here disagree?
>
> [Krimel]
> I suspect some do but do they? Anyone? Anyone?


Greetings David and Krimel,

I do not like the top-down or bottom-up model.  I like the Net Of Jewels 
Model:  The universe is uncaused, like a net of jewels in which each is only 
the reflection of all the others in a fantastic interrelated harmony without 
end.

Marsha