[MD] Quick one: causation

[Platt Holden]

> > > > [Chris] 
> > > > Allright, answer me this, just quickly - why can't the explanation
> of
> > > > a performed action
> > > > by an individual be explained only in terms of physical causation?
> > > 
> > > [Platt]
> > > "There is always this open end of Dynamic indeterminacy." (Lila, 11)
> > > 
> > > [Krimel]
> > > So what you and Pirsig are saying here is, "Ooops"?
> > 
> > [Platt]
> > "Ooops" means evolutionary changes occur without purpose. "Dynamic 
> > indeterminacy" means evolutionary changes occur in response to
> something
> > better, i.e., towards the "fittest."
> > 
> > The difference is well spelled out in Chapter 11 of Lila which we all
> know
> > you summarily reject.    
> > 
> > [Krimel]
> > The word is 'indeterminacy". Look it up. It means that for better or
> for
> > worse the outcome can not be determined.
> 
> [Platt]
> Look up the word "Dynamic" in Lila. It means good. 
> 
> [Krimel]
> Actually I believe the word is left more or less undefined.


"After many months of thinking about it, he was left with a reward of two 
terms: Dynamic good and static good, which became the basic division of his 
emerging Metaphysics of Quality." (Lila, 9)

> > [Krimel]
> > But yes, Chapter 11 is so full of misconceptions that it is should be
> > embarrassing to anyone who wants to take the MoQ serious.
> 
> [Platt]
> Obviously you don't take the MOQ seriously.
> 
> [Krimel]
> I am seriously embarrassed.

Yeah, right.