[MD] MD Chaos and its role in Evolution

[David M]

Hi Case

I agree that there are far more levels, but 4 is a good starting point.
Regarding consciousness, what do you think of this:

http://www.resurgence.org/resurgence/issues/goodwin201.htm

DM


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Case" <Case at ispots.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2005 5:36 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] MD Chaos and its role in Evolution


> [DM]
> I sympathise with this view of DQ but would add that the levels are 
> created
> because some quality choices are made about what ceases to be poissible 
> and
> becomes actual.
> This is what human beings do and I think is not confined to them in 
> nature.
>
> [Case]
> OK but I also have problems with the whole levels thing and avoid
> discussions involving them. Pirsig performs a service in recognizing that
> different levels, or dimensions, come to play in any given situation. But 
> to
> say that there are only four levels, that matter, is wrong in my view. Any
> situation should be evaluated in terms of what elements play a causal role
> and how do they interact. This is also my objection to Dupree's analysis 
> of
> disunity. Physics may be seeking an analysis of how matter and energy can 
> be
> reduced to some as yet undefines monism. But ecology begins with an 
> analysis
> of what factors are even important to consider. The determination of and
> study of these factors is a reductionist program. It may also be possible 
> to
> analyze ecological factors into component parts and so forth and so on. I
> believe what you find in this process is self similarity across scale. 
> That
> is, whatever level you choose to look at will display complex interactions
> among the component parts whether these are physical or mental constructs.
>
> Beyond this whenever a possibility becomes an actuality, it impacts 
> related
> probabilities. The history of these interactions is called the present. Or
> as I have been saying in my thread with Scott: The "Now instant" is where
> all probability is at 100%. This is to say, the instant of absolute
> certainty. Every other instant, past and future, contains within it 
> elements
> of uncertainty.
>
> As for what humans do, this is an area of fundemental difference between
> those advocating eternal consciousness and those advocating emergent
> consciousness. (Please, note I use the term consciousness but have no idea
> what it is supposed to mean, I use it to refer to the collection of fuzzy,
> touchy feely concepts.). I maintain that awareness, purpose, consciousness
> etc. emerge and evolve. As a consequence We are the source of purpose and
> value in the universe it did not exist until we got here.
>
>> DM
>> I do not think this limitation of value would be acceptable to what the
>> MOQ
>> is saying. Do you disagree with the MOQ here?
>>
>> [Case]
>> I don't think I disagree with the MoQ in this particular respect. Value,
>> while equated by Pirsig with Quality, really seems to me to be about the
>> perception of Quality. I do however strongly disagree with the commonly
>> held
>> notion among MoQers that DQ is Good. In my view DQ is good sometimes and
>> bad
>> sometimes. Sunny weather in the South is Good. Hurricanes are Bad. This 
>> is
>> why I view Quality as the realm of what's possible or Chance.
>>
>>> |DM
>>> Is order an accident? Is there no value to order?
>>>
>>>
>>> [Case]
>>> Hmmm, order is an accident, yes. But it is inevitable. Order must occur
>>> in
>>> chaos.
>>>
>>> But since Chaos seems to have as may negative connotations as Quality 
>>> has
>>> positive ones; I am willing to call it Chance.
>>>
>>> Value arises in the realtionship between the observer and observed.
>
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>