[MD] evolution.....MOQ v SOM

[Squonkonguitar at aol.com]

Gav: was given two papers recently. one illustrates the SOM
take on  evolution; the other is refreshingly
MOQcompatible. 

Mark: Hello Gav.  Let's get on with it...

Gav: anyway something a bit better:
2. MOQ
>From self-reference to  self-transcendence: the
evolution of self-organization dynamics.
Erich  Jantsch

okay this is probably the most technically OTT  paper
ever...but somehow it still works.
begins with a nice quote from  martin buber:

"all real living is meeting. meeting is not in time
and  space, but space and time in meeting."

profound stuff eh? if meeting is  taken as a synonym
for experience and by association  Quality...meeting
seems to suggest the direct apprehension/experience  of
another....an authentic encounter with the numinous.
 
Mark: I think this can go further. In ZMM, Quality is an event after which  
subjects and objects emerge. Now that we have the MoQ i think it may be 
possible  to say: DQ is an event after which sq patterns emerge. So, the term, 
'meeting'  misleadingly places sq patterns before DQ here. 'Meeting' could be 
described as  DQ generating sq patterns in an event? This is a process?
The term, 'other' has no meaning at the biological level; the other is a  
static pattern left over after a Dynamic event.

Gav: okay some  excerpts:
"symbiosis is usually defined in structural terms,
that is to  say, by the relations between two or more
entities such as organisms. if  however we look at a
*symbiosis of processes* instead, we arrive at  the
notion of *co*evolution. In a predator-prey relation
the entities of  the prey species are destroyed but not
its *evolutionary process". on the  contrary, both
predator and prey species benefit in a *dynamic* view
and  expand their niches." 

nice *dynamic* take don't you think?
 
Mark: I'm getting excited. Very excited. Process ontology. DQ is churning  
out sq patterns of evolution, and those very same sq patterns are  
co-evolutionary. But this raises, it seems to me, all the questions i tried to  explore in 
my concept of coherence? I may be too hooked up on this, but if  patterns can 
form relationships, then it seems to me we then have a right to  examine what 
is best about those relationships? The answer has to have something  to do 
with DQ, but in a static sense.

Gav: "evolution at all levels  involves the freedom of
action as well as the recognition of  ubiquitous
systemic interconnectedness - in short, the joy as
well as the  meaning of life"

hands up who likes hedonism?
 
Mark: I've always thought that if Chess does it for you then you rock. I  
will put my hand up for all those who are often viewed as sad but  rock.

Gav: The earliest life forms were by the far the best
adapted.  if the meaning of evolution were just
adaptation and the increase of chances  for survival,
as is so often claimed, the development of more
complex  organisms would have been meaningless or even
a mistake. evolution however is  about *creation* [DQ
latching], about life and not mere  survival."

nice one erich.
 
Mark: I feel like i'm highjacking your post Gav but this wreakes of  
coherence. The complexity of sq relationships is another way of saying 'More  
Dynamic'. But as DQ is undefined to say, 'More Dynamic' must have a sq  description? 
If, However, Coherence IS a sq description of how sq opens up ever  more to DQ 
then it may have value. Apologies Gav.

Gav: "The  self-reflexive mind is not restricted to the
organism whose dynamics it  represents; it is truly
self-transcendent. it creates images of humanity  in
macrosystems of various scope up to the ultimate
religious image of  humanity-in-universe. with these
images arises the creative urge to become a  force in
the further evolution of the macrosystems on earth  and
beyond....*Responsibility* is the true spirit of the
self-reflexive  mind, of self-transcendence in
evolution."

the ultimate ethos of the  intellectual level?
 
Mark: I have a feeling your own concern for Gaia is seriously influencing  
your interpratation of this passage Gav?
I would watch that if i were you.
But, as i broadley agree with what i think you are saying i have to say  this 
is one the most honourable sentiments a Human being can hold.

Gav:  and finally:
"the opening up of new levels of *anagenesis*
[step-wise  evolution of the dynamics of
self-organization, bringing into play new levels  of
systems....like the SQ hierarchy evolution arlo
described so well in  individual v collective thread]
means new levels of indeterminancy, new  degrees of
freedom. Indeterminancy plays at many microlevels  and
macrolevels; the quantum-mechanical indterminancy,
which is usually  recognized, is only one of them....up
till now, all [academic] attempts to  find valid
formulations for *morphogenesis* [darwinian theory's
blind  spot] at each level are, at best, based on a
view which considers the  interaction of stochastic and
deterministic factors from an angle of view  pertaining
to a single level only. all processes which impinge on
this  level from adjacent levels are considered as
random. What is the meaning of  *randomness* in the
context of multilevel evolution in which each  new
level brings new ordering principles into play? How
random is the  fluctuation which is introduced into a
system by one of its members or by an  outsider if this
individual is itself the product of a long
evolutionary  chain and of its own ontogeny?" 

"it seems we frequently confuse  indeterminancy and
chance. Indeterminancy is the freedom available at
each  level which, however, cannot jump over the shadow
of its own history.  Evolution is the open history of
an unfolding complexity, not the history of  random
processes. *****what emerges are the contours of a
world in which  little (if anything) is purely random,
but much is indetermined and shaped by  a creativity
that transcends the systems which are  its
vehicles."*****

wow...that was a lot of typing for me.
 
Mark: Is Arlo interested in coherence at all?
 
Love,
Mark