[MD] On Pirsig's letter to Paul Turner

[Tuukka Virtaperko]

Dan, all,

Whoops, I wrote:

> The reason why I said inorganic patterns have value only as extensions 
> of biological patterns is that this way the inorganic level has some 
> value, but it also has necessarily less value than the biological level.

What I meant is that the inorganic level necessarily doesn't have more 
value than the biological level.

Suppose we start the model so that there is zero quality within the 
model. Then a biological pattern makes the first choice using some 
inorganic pattern as an instrument. In this situation the inorganic 
level and the biological level have an equal amount of value for as long 
as it takes for the biological pattern to carry out the choice. After 
the choice has been made the amount of inorganic value is back to zero 
but biological value remains.

So, in this special situation, the inorganic level and the biological 
level would have an equal amount of value. But as more choices are being 
made the inorganic level would definitely end up having less value than 
the biological level. I don't think this is a problem, but I was, 
technically, wrong when I said that the inorganic level would 
necessarily have less value than the biological level, because that 
doesn't apply in the special situation I mentioned although it seems to 
apply otherwise.

Approaching my quota of four messages per day...

Regards,
Tuk