[MD] Chance v. Dynamic Quality

[Platt Holden]

> [Platt]
> "Absence of complete knowledge," i.e., ignorance
> 
> [Arlo]
> So DQ is ignorance. Okay. I'll buy that.
> 
> [Krimel}
> I like to call it uncertainty. But I'm in.

Chance and uncertainty identify ignorance, DQ a vague sense of betterness.  

 > [Platt]
> Few responses to change and uncertainty are DQ responses..
> 
> [Arlo]
> "[Dynamic] Quality IS the response of the organism to its 
> environment." (ZMM, emphasis added).
> 
> [Krimel]
> I'd say almost all responses to change involve uncertainty. 
> You never know what might happen on the way from here to there.

DQ did not exist in ZMM. I would say most responses to change are static, 
i.e., predictable. 

> [Platt]
> Most are static responses from one's social and intellectual patterns...
> 
> [Arlo]
> HOW we respond is always constrained (and enabled) by the static 
> patterns of which we are comprised. There is no such thing as a 
> "static response". There IS such a thing as a "probable response", a 
> response to DQ that is so likely to occur that we see it as a "static
> pattern".

If it looks like a static pattern, responds like a static pattern, acts 
like a static pattern, it's a static pattern. 

> [Krimel]
> I would add that dynamic and static are both used to describe the same
> idea:

Pirsig makes a definite distinction between Dynamic and static.

> Quality. This gives us a way to talk about phenomena. "Hurricane" as a
> concept is a static pattern of meaning. It describes the common
> properties
> of a meteorological event. But to be inside a hurricane is pure dynamic
> quality. Everything that used to be static in the world around you is
> now
> uncertain. Objects fly in the wind, trees bend and buildings shudder.
> Concepts are static, percepts are dynamic. The way I see it, I rejoice
> at
> each and everything that can be made static in my world. It's one less
> thing
> that's likely to hit me in the head during a high wind.
> 
> "Dynamic response." Holy shit, DUCK!"

No. Just a typical, predictable static biological level response. 

> [Platt]
> If horror, disgust or dread is involved, the likely source is a 
> social or intellectual pattern reacting to a biological pattern
> 
> [Arlo]
> Ah, right DQ only produces Cezanne's and concertos. Sadly, though, 
> this is not true. DQ also produces plane crashes and volcanic 
> eruptions and plague outbreaks and meteors crashing into us and 
> zepplin's exploding and boats sinking and cancer and strokes and 
> famine and pestilence.
> 
> "Horror, disgust or dread" are perspectives from a human 
> point-of-view. Nothing more. Certainly not anything "DQ" would be 
> concerned with.
> 
> [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. They are encoded
> directly
> into our biology. In that sense they are truly static. But they allow
> for
> dynamic and flexible interaction with the environment. They save us from
> the
> horrible and bond us to what's lovable. The pre-conceptual cutting edge
> of
> experience is emotion. Pre-intellectual means biological.
> 
> The disgust I feel when stepping in dog shit is a biological response to
> biological quality.
> Joy I felt when Obama was elected was a biological response to social
> quality.
> The embarrassment I feel for Platt when reading many of his posts is a
> biological response to low intellectual quality.

I too have static biological responses -- sadness at Obozo's election and 
Krimel's inability to think outside the scientism box.