[MD] on the radio

[ian glendinning]

Hi DMB,

If most of that sentence was clear as a summary of MoQ, then I'm
puzzled why you didn't just identify the key points that needed
clarifying in the first place. You seem to be using this thread to
take a pop at me, using pejorative terms like "drivel", "narcissism"
and "smoke screen" but I think we've narrowed down the specific points
- we got there.

(1) "Hitching the MOQ to all that quantum talk" ?
Are you saying you are sceptical there is any relevance / connection
of QM to MoQ ? All I can say is that I do, and that Pirsig did in his
SODV paper, And Ant clearly does too, in making the David Barrow
references. Saying any more, we might be better to hitch a ride on the
current Quantum Physics thread.

(2) How do I get from "dependent arising" to emergence and "recursive
interplay" ?
I understand dependent arising the same way you do it seems, where you
said "nothing has an independent existence, that all things exist only
in relation to other things, that no thing has an inherent or
essential being". What I'm exploring, and bringing in many metaphors
from other people, is the nature of "in relation to".

Firstly, remember the intial caveat ... I was just brain-storming some
ideas, executing a "brain dump" of related issues, until the stream of
consciousness subsided. You call it a smoke screen, I call it seizing
the moment to "catch those thoughts" at David M's invitation -
narcissism you called it. Secondly, remember also that I prefer
dynamic dialogue, to seemingly "clear definitions" of terms, which
tend to be illusory. (Wittgtenstein tells us - roughly - all
philosophy is language and all language is word-games.) That said,
let's see how far we can develop those ideas in just a few minutes
e-mail (remembering also that I have yards of other thoughts on this
stuff written and referred to elsewhere). OK, so ...

"In relation to"

The relationship is dynamic - no brainer surely - basic MoQ.

The relationship is "two-way" or directionless if you prefer - not
only are the objects either end of this relationship subordinate to
the relationship itself, but neither end (object or subject) has any
"precedence" over the other.

The relationship is characterised by Pirsig as "quality" itself - a
"valuing" relationship, but is ultimately "ineffable". In some sense
it is a "creative" relationship, nothing really exists without it,
reality arises out of it. Ineffable or not (remember I'm not a
metaphysician) I'm suggesting many metaphors used in sciences that
explore complex causal relationships exhibit parallels that may be
worth our understanding.

At that point I'll stop, because I'll be repeating myself, essentially
listing all those examples again ... If you agree that exploring those
parallel's is valuable, we can pick up on them, and take it from
there; if you don't there will be little point.

Regards, stuckly,
Ian

On 12/2/06, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:
> 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 .
>
> 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
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>