[MD] Chance v. Dynamic Quality

[Arlo Bensinger]

[Krimel]
I like to call it uncertainty. But I'm in.

[Arlo]
I think chance, uncertainty, probability, possibility... all 
correlate with DQ. As does "absence of complete knowledge". I think 
we all have preferred words for this, but this idea I find is 
inescapable regarding DQ.

[Krimel]
I'd say almost all responses to change involve uncertainty.

[Arlo]
ALMOST all? I'd say all flat out. Admittedly, sometimes uncertainty 
may be reduced to exponentially approaching "zero", but I don't think 
any response, on any level, is ever 100% certain. Something like 
99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999...9999999% is likely 
the best we can do.

[Krimel]
You never know what might happen on the way from here to there.

[Arlo]
Nope, and that's DQ right there.

[Krimel]
"Dynamic response." Holy shit, DUCK!"

[Arlo]
Hehe. Nitpicking here, but I'd say there are no "dynamic responses" 
either (just like "static responses"). There are "responses" to 
dynamic quality, and some become so probable as to appear to us as 
static patterns.

And even this isn't exactly right. Quality IS the response. And some 
responses are simply more probable than others, in a huge sea of 
interweaving variables and competing forces.

[Krimel]
The fact that all humans everywhere are able to involuntarily 
communicate these emotions, both the good ones and the bad ones, 
suggests that they have been common to our ancestors for a very long time.

[Arlo]
My point was that what may seem "horrible" from our vantage may not 
be "horrible" from other vantages. Take Pirsig's germ and extend it 
to a plague. What that germ is doing is "horrible" only from the 
perspective of human beings. From ITS perspective, it's just 
following its own path, responding to DQ within its own probability 
field (if I may steal your term). That you are repulsed from dog shit 
has nothing to do with the same event from the dog's perspective. Or 
from the plants which depend on that for fertilizer.

When Platt says basically "DQ doesn't make bad things happen", it 
points to a cosmos ordered to respond to man's vantage point. DQ 
doesn't cause the plague, because the plague is "bad" from man's 
vantage point. Thus, DQ takes "man's side" on things. And that's just 
cornball philosophy.