Wim, Platt, Jonathan, Adam, all MD
accidentally on late... :-) , here is my position.
I completely agree with Wim that the accident/purpose dilemma disappears in
a both/and solution. There is indeed chance and there are purposes in our
everyday life. On "purpose", while I indeed agree with Jonathan on what a
Platypus is:
> When discovered, the duckbill platypus (Ornithorhynchus anatinus) proved
> difficult to fit to the accepted taxonomy of the day. Pirsig's platypus
> is some observed beast (i.e. concept or pattern) that doesn't easily fit
> into either of the two classification boxes of SOM, the "subjective" and
> "objective".
... I find that purpose fits very well in a SOM map as "subjective".
The big SOM platypus is accident (and that's why IMO it's so hard for many
to accept its existence). In facts, "accident" is not subjective and it's
not objective. It must be really a strange beast: note that Adam, who has
correctly shown that "value" is a good replacement for "purpose", finds it
difficult to handle "accident": by replacing it with "the most valuable
outcome of the given circumstances", he actually introduces another bigger
Platypus: the circumstances. So, let me try my MOQish viewpoint of
"accident"... just starting from "purpose".
Wim offers the right quotes for a MOQ viewpoint of "purpose". In short:
When I act according to my own purpose I'm free.
When I follow someone else's purpose (be it God, my parents, the President
or whoever else) I'm determined.
BUT..... attention: to be free does not mean necessarily to be dynamic.
In facts, I can freely choose to watch my TV all my life. Not very dynamic,
indeed. The problem is "I". I am a mix of infinite patterns coming from the
past. If my purpose is merely the purpose of my patterns, it is like to say
that I'm determined. To be dynamic is to be able to switch my patterns off
(part of them, at least) and act.
How do I switch my patterns off? I can follow my sense of beauty, or an
instinctive determination of rebellion. I can meditate, I can open my mind
to someone else's opinion.... but I could also *by purpose* toss dice and
let chance decide for me. In this latter case, am I following purpose or
chance? The purpose/chance is quite an absurd dilemma.
Common SOMish way of thinking says that chance is "dumb" or "blind". No, I
think that SOM is blind to it. I think the MOQ gives chance its value:
chance is a good method for abandoning the usual static routine.
In facts, imagine you are an amoeba, or, even better, a quark. .... how do
you switch your patterns off? Meditate? Listen to the other particles'
viewpoint? I think that chance is a perfect way. Nature is full of
examples, spermatozoa is one (by the way, Platt, sure I'm glad I'm here...
I'm glad for my luck, I'd say!): our testicles can't design and produce the
"next release enhanced cell" so they produce millions of cells... and good
luck! Particles, given a range of possible behaviors, are free. What's the
problem in saying they follow chance? Quibbling if they have the purpose to
follow chance or not is a complete nonsense, and anyway doesn't change the
real matter. That in the end chance allows dynamism.
Of course, we don't use often chance as we have intellectually discovered
other better methods. So I don't toss dice to decide what to do, that's why
I'm not a quark.... even if, sometimes, I think we should better take out
our politicians like lotto numbers...
Ciao,
Marco
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 25 2002 - 16:06:21 BST