[MD] MD Chaos and its role in Evolution

[David M]

Case

Does not religion begin with our fear
of the unknown? Our relationshipto chance drives our culture a great deal.

DM


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Case" <Case at ispots.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Friday, December 16, 2005 8:18 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] MD Chaos and its role in Evolution


> 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.
>
> 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/
>