[MD] Chaos

[Case]

[Ham]
The answer to Marsha's question is No.  Chaos is a state of total
disorganization where confusion reigns.  What could it be relative to?

[Case]
Chaos is exactly not this. Order is a form of Chaos. Order coalesces from
chaos as static relationships form. This are called attractors.

Chin continues:
> In mathematics, if you start with the number 5 at the
> beginning of an extended equation, the end result
> would be totally different if you used the number
> 5.00001 at the beginning.

[Ham]
That is not an example of chaos.  When you select a numerical value and
apply it to an equation, no matter how extended, you establish a relation --

the value (5,00001) to the product or result of the equation.  Relationship
is precisely what chaos lacks.

[Case]
Chin is correct. Any relationship of value specified in the real world is
subject to this rounding error. This source of error extends all the way
down to the quantum level were it is called the Uncertainty Principle. To
produce a perfect determinism one would have to have perfect precision. This
is not possible even in principle. As a result you get a purely
deterministic universe with very restricted ability to predict future
outcomes. In short chaos allows what level of predictability we have in
virtue of its lack of precision.

[Ham]
Cosmologists have theorized that chaos was the state of "primordial matter"
before the creation of distinct forms.  This theory presumes that one of the
random "possibilities" of chance is the "taming" of material chaos toward a
progressively higher state of organization in which human awareness is the
most advanced form.  Pirsig is not explicit on the creation theory of the
MoQ, but most of his followers have assumed that the "taming factor" is a
"moral order" that is innate in the physical universe.

[Case]
This sounds like your interpretation. Which cosmologists say this? Many
religious cosmologies begin in this sort of primordial chaos. But a more
recent understanding of chaos renders these ideas useless. A more current
understanding would hold that is stability of relationship emerge from
particular levels or the underlieing chaos these reduce the limits or
degrees of freedom available on the whole. This order becomes more orderly
and relationships among the stabile forms create new kinds of relationships.
What makes this particular space and time so fertile is the way that the
various cosmic forces are balanced. This is a Goldilocks Zone.

[Ham]
I don't subscribe to either theory.  While it may be aesthetically pleasing
to consider relational order an innate "force" in the universe, such a
notion makes the creation of subjective consciousness totally dependent on
an objective reality.  

[Case]
Life is a complex set of relationships that occurs in a Goldilocks Zone.
There are all sorts of conditions that might result in such zones. We are
very fortunate to be here now. Subjective conscious is just one of the cool
things made possible when a sufficient level of complexity is allows it to
occur.

[Ham]
If anything makes order out of chaos it is the human intellect and its sense
of Value.  Since order and relation hold a much higher value for man than
confusion and chaos, man looks for relationships in every experience of the
world and comprehends his reality as a rational, orderly system.

[Case]
Human intellect, perception and subjectivity are almost entirely focused on
the contingencies of human survival on Planet Earth. Our senses are tuned to
it. Our thoughts are structured around it. We are creatures who seek after
patterns that will give order predictability and stability to the Chaos
around us at all levels.

[Ham]
Although one can theorize that, in the absence of such a rational construct,
the universe is inherently chaotic, I see no need for this alternative.

[Case]
This is not just a theory. It is woven into our very being. We sing of it in
song and we tell stories about it. We have built entire social systems
around it. Far from being theoretical it is fundamental.

[Ham]
Absent conscious awareness and there is no universe.  Actualized reality is
a dichotomy comprising awareness and otherness (being).  These contingencies
are held together by the Value of Essence as sensed by the individual.  

[Case]
This is a purely theoretical stance. In the absence of consciousness there
would be no awareness of a universe. But this is not sufficient grounds for
saying there would be nothing in the absence of awareness. Existence
precedes essence. Something has to be before we can ascribe qualities to it.

[Ham]
We don't fashion our relational world from matter in a state of chaos, nor
does chaos magically transform itself into an orderly system.  The
antithesis of physical reality is no reality -- nothingness -- which is what
pure awareness is without its object.

[Case]
We fashion our world from the stability that emerges are various levels
below us. Inorganic stability can produce biological stability and so on.
But order does as a matter of fact become magically transformed out of
chaos. Crystals are orderly structures that result from purely physical
process under particular conditions. Whirlpools, dust devils, the jet
stream, the gulf stream river deltas are all orderly forms that results in
the face of chaotic systems. This is not theoretical this is real stuff
happening right now. What makes us special is our ability to see and make
sense of these patterns. These ability is itself emerges out of chaos
because having it conveys selective advantage on us and our offspring.

[Ham]
Knowledge IS what we know.  What we know is what we intellectualize from
experience.  We are literal "nothings" acquiring the value of Essence to
make being aware.  Our relation to Essence is conditional and valuistic.
Relational existence with all its intellectualized patterns is a dichotomous
illusion.  The only true reality is the absolute Source of this illusion.

[Case]
The illusion itself emerges from the conditions that allow living beings
like us to experience time and space in just the way we do it. The world is
a fascinating place all by itself constructing fantasies out of words with
obscure meanings does not help further our understanding.

[Ham]
To answer your first question, objective reality -- that is, the appearance
of things occurring in time and space -- is an illusionary construct of the
intellect on sensing the Value of Essence.  

[Case]
It is not so much and illusion as a reconstruction or representation in
memory. It is constructed from our sensations and the equipment nature has
given us to process them with. It is illusory because we are confined always
to our sensations and representations.

[Ham]
The "subjectivity" of consciousness (commonly called "self-awareness) is
what would theoretically remain if the objects disappeared.  Empirically it
is a "negate" -- a non-entity -- i.e., nothingness.  Epistemologically,
however, it is the proprietary sense of value.

[Case]
TITs are what would remain is all subjectivity were to disappear.
Empirically the result would be diddly squat. Almost nothing would change.
The universe would be without meaning and it would remain undisturbed.

[Ham]
I did not say that reality is nothingness.  I said existential
(experiential) reality is a dichotomy consisting of (subjective) awareness
and (objective) otherness.  They are co-dependent contingencies in that one
cannot exist without the other.  

[Case]
They do not exist this way and as long as we are around they can not for us.
But there is nothing to suggest that objects require subjects.

[Ham]
Awareness seeks the value of otherness which becomes its "content" and is
intellectualized as "being".  But the reality of experience is a relational
illusion.  The true reality is the absolute Source of this dichotomy.

[Case]
The source of each moment is the moments that came before. There are any
number of trajectories that could lead to this point in time just as this
point in time can lead to any number of possible futures. The occasion, to
use Whitehead's term, NOW to use Case's term, is the only reality that
exists. All else is representation or modeling.

[Ham]
To create the dichotomy, Essence negates, or denies, Nothingness.  This
separates self-awareness from Essence and creates the appearance of
otherness as the desired object of awareness.  But in becoming aware, we
acquire the value of Essence and intellectualize the object.  Hence, the
ultimate relation is the perceived value of relational being to Absolute
Essence.

[Case]
Translating Hamish into English is always a tricky affair but it sounds like
in this act of negation or denial Essence is: Creating a dichotomy, creating
a separation, creating the appearance. Sounds like busy work to me. Nothing
is an abstraction as you use it. Nothing is just what is says it is:
Nothing. It is acausal and irrelevant to anything that is going on
physically or metaphysically. You have set up Essense in anthropomorphic
terms. You have personified it. It acts, it creates, it earns a fancy new
title, Absolute Essence. It's like you are driving a tack with a
sledgehammer.