[MD] Social Imposition ?

[David M]

Hi Case

Doesn't Prigogine talk about there being
multiple stable states and is not this
selection of different states without any
'cause' not what we mean by DQ
and emergence?

David M

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <pholden at davtv.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 1:15 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Social Imposition ?


> Quoting Case <Case at iSpots.com>:
>
>> [Case]
>> Guttenberg represents the next great exponential shift in this process. 
>> But
>> writing itself was not invented by any one person. It developed over
>> thousands of years. Cave painting from 30,000 years. Summerian, 
>> Babylonian
>> and Egyptian go back 5,000 years. The oldest Chinese is around 3,500 
>> years
>> old. There were markings on bones carried by the 7000 year old ice man 
>> dug
>> up a while back. So if you want to pick an "inventor" it will have to a 
>> be
>> multicultural party.
>
> I wonder who first made markings on bones. Just because the first persons 
> involved
> in the long history of writing are unknown doesn't make it 
> "multicultural."
>
>> But here it is the invention itself and its cultural impact that are
>> important not the Who was on first thingy.
>>
>> > [Case]
>> > But more to the point "Dynamic invention"; "magical emergence"? You say
>> > potato I say potatoe. Evolution is about how systems maintain 
>> > equilibrium
>> > in the face of change. The extension of individual human memory in the
>> > form of written language is a change that originated not in the
>> > environment but in within the species. It is an example of an 
>> > intellectual
>> > pattern causing disequilibrium at the social level. As Prigione 
>> > indicates
>> > when a system is pushed into a far from equilibrium state in can either
>> > reorganize into a higher state of energy or a lower one. In this 
>> > instance
>> > it was a higher one and the results are... well History.
>>
>> [Platt]
>> Your description of evolution and Pirsig's are at odds. I'll go with
>> Pirsig's.
>>
>> [Case]
>> And in what specific way do you think my account is at odds with 
>> Pirsig's?
>
> Didn't you in a post some time back reject Pirsig's explanation of 
> evolution?
> Anyway, I don't find anything about "equilibrium" in Pirsig's explanation. 
> Here
> you talk about "systems" as scientists do.
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------
> This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/
> 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/
>