[MD] on the radio

[david buchanan]

Ian glendinning (arguably) clarified his clarification:
Sorry, correction. Paul's term is "dependent arising", I mixed up the two 
halves of the term... the arising is the analogue of emergence... the 
dependency is the analogue of causation.

His original phrase was:
...recursive interplay of "emergent arising".

And "explained" it this way:
Firstly that cause and effect is better thought of as "emergent arising"... 
Secondly that the dynamic "interplay" we know as DQ, is not directional in 
any simple sense, but involves two-way interaction and, because those 
interactions may cross levels, they can in fact be recursive, (a la 
Hofstader, and Quine) leading to tuning or coherence to use Mark's 
sweet-spot metaphor, strange attractors in chaos terms, and the emergence of 
"things" not actually present in the original dynamically interacting 
objects. (Understanding the "science" of those effects was where I was 
trying to take the subject matter with David M. And they're all subjects I 
expressed views about at length here and in other contexts, as David M 
knows.)

dmb says:
So, you're saying that we have Paul, Hofstader, Quine, Mark, David M, and 
your own lengthy post all wrapped up in the one sentence I asked you to 
explain. Why does it seem like you are trying to confuse rather than 
clarify? It seems like you want me to get lost, like you're just throwing up 
a smoke screen.

Look, I understand that most of the sentence in question was just vagely 
making reference to elements of the MOQ. And it seemed it was a squishy way 
of hitching the MOQ to all that quantum talk. But I'm not buying it. What it 
all comes down to that original phrase, the one you're trying to clarify for 
the second time; "recursive interplay of emergent arising". That's what 
bothered me in the first place. That's where I distinctly detected the ordor 
of bullshit. With your correction it becomes, "recursive interplay of 
dependent arising". That hardly makes a difference as far as intelligibilty 
goes Wouldn't it be easier and more honest to just admit that you have no 
idea what it means, despite the fact that you wrote it?

In one sentence you oddly equate DQ with "interplay", whatever that is, and 
go on to describe it as not directional but two-way, cross-level, recursive, 
leading to turning or coherence, leading to strange attractors and the 
emerge of 'things' not present in the interacting objects. I honestly do not 
recall ever encountering so much nonsense in one sentence. I find myself 
wondering where you get nerve to post this kind of drivel.

"Dependent arising" is the better half of that nonsensical phrase, but one 
of us doesn't understand what it means. As i understand the concept, it says 
that nothing has an independent existence, that all things exist only in 
relation to other things, that no thing has an inherent or essential being.

Trying to imagine what "recursive interplay" of this would look like makes 
my brain hurt. Maybe it would help if "recursive interplay" actually meant 
something. Looks like you're still hanging from the drivel hook and I 
suspect that you may be stuck there.

Thanks,
dmb

_________________________________________________________________
View Athlete’s Collections with Live Search 
http://sportmaps.live.com/index.html?source=hmemailtaglinenov06&FORM=MGAC01