[MD] Chance v. Dynamic Quality

[Arlo Bensinger]

Yikes! Something broke wordwrap in that post. Trying again.

[Platt rolls out a quote]
"These patterns can't by themselves perceive or adjust to Dynamic 
Quality. Only a living being can do that." (Lila, 13)

[Arlo]
Gee. You want to instigate another dialogue you are incapable of 
responding to already? Cool.

Answer me the following.

Was there ever a time nothing existed that could respond to DQ?

Or at every point in time was there something that could? What 
responded to DQ before "man"?

What is another "living being" that once could respond to DQ but no 
longer can? Or is no longer in existence?

Give me an example from our vast anthropological and historical 
warehouse of knowledge, just ONE example, of a "living being" other 
than man responding to DQ? Say in the entire Cretaceous period (a 
span of 70 million years, certainly some "living being" was able to 
respond to DQ during that entire time? Give me an example, or even 
take a guess!)

Yes, let's take the Cretaceous as a good starting point. 70 million 
years. No "man". A plethora of "living beings". So, was ANY of them 
able to respond to DQ? How? What were they doing (in response to DQ) 
that other "living beings" today are no longer able to do?

Its obvious Pirsig misspoke here (he is not infallible), since in 
other places he makes it clear that responding to DQ is something 
even atoms and amoebas can do. (Reflect on the fact that Pirsig 
himself says the Quality of ZMM is the DQ of LILA. Then reread the 
amoeba/acid passage.)

What Pirsig SHOULD have said is "only a living being can respond to 
DQ with a BIOLOGICAL repertoire of possibility", then go on to say 
"only SOME living beings of sufficient complexity can respond to DQ 
with a SOCIAL repertoire of possibility", then maybe even "only MAN 
can respond to DQ with an INTELLECTUAL repertoire of possibility (and 
possibly some higher mammals)".

Then he'd be on firm ground. Indeed, he says so much in ZMM.

"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."[HERE] 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. In 
our highly complex organic state we advanced organisms respond to our 
environment with an invention of many marvelous analogues." (ZMM)

The amoeba responds to DQ with a very limited "set of analogues" 
(repertoire of responses). More complex organisms are able to respond 
socially. Even more complex, intellectually.

He talks about the "hot stove" as an example of a person responding 
to DQ. This is the SAME as the amoeba responding to nearby acid. The 
initial reaction to pull away is both responding BIOLOGICALLY to DQ. 
The human can later develop an "understanding", in other words can 
later also respond INTELLCTUALLY (founded on his assimilation of 
social patterns).

Here Pirsig is on firm ground.

Just considering your quote alone, he is not. And neither are you.

Because when you take that little quote and really think about it, it 
simply can't hold water. Unless you think you can answer any of my 
above questions. I know you can't. And here's where you prove me right.

(I'll remind everyone that I've asked you these questions several 
times before (in the archives), and every time you demonstrated only 
that you are incapable of answering, giving only distractive rhetoric 
(just like you did about the distinctions between "chance" and "DQ".) 
And yet you drumbeat that quote. Sad. Such intellectual dishonesty.)