[MD] MD Chaos and its role in Evolution

[Case]

DM
I agree that there are far more levels, but 4 is a good starting point.
[Case]
I have always said there are two kinds of people in the world: those who
classify people into groups and those who don't. Any classification systems
is useful to the extent that it is useful. The MoQ system has been enshrined
as something far greater and more rigid. So much so that I think it is more
of a hinderance than an aide to understanding. 

DM
Regarding consciousness, what do you think of this:
http://www.resurgence.org/resurgence/issues/goodwin201.htm

[Case]
I liked it a lot. I have been attempting to raise most of these issues, as
you know. I might have some quarrel with him near the end where he is
attempting to interject Value and Quality into the science but I haven't
thought it through much and suspect that my uneasiness is more
methodological than in principle. The social sciences have long employed
methods like those discussed in the article. However, the goal is usually
about quantification of preceived quality but that is what Goodwin is
talking about too so I give it a tentative thumbs up.

On a side note I have really gotten excited about the whole Chance instead
of Chaos terminology for Quality. For one thing I looked up Chance on
Dictionary.com's thesaurus and found 119 entries. I collected all of the
individual entries and found more that 600 individual words or phrases. I
was not careful to screen out much besides the duplicates, so a lot of the
individual words and phrase might to subject to removal for one reason or
another. Compare this to the Eskimos' 30 odd words for snow and you can see
that Chance is a concept deeply rooted in western consciousness. I would say
that is because it is the heart of the matter. 




----- 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.