[MD] psst, Squonk, Over here

[Squonkonguitar at aol.com]

At 01:15 PM 10/31/2006, Mark wrote:
>DQ is clearly stated in the MoQ  to be the source of sq evolution when sq
>latches. If sq does not latch  then DQ has not advanced sq.

Hi Mark,

When you wrote the above,  were you referring to this?

"...  . A Dynamic advance is meaningless  unless it can find some 
static pattern with which to protect itself from  degeneration back to 
the conditions that existed before the advance was  made. Evolution 
can't be a continuous forward movement. It must be a process  of 
ratchet-like steps in which there is a Dynamic movement forward up  
some new incline and then, if the result looks successful, a static  
latching-on of the gain that has been made; then another Dynamic  
advance, then another static latch." (LILA, Chapter 11)
 
 
Mark 31-10-06: Hello Marsha, yes i did have this in mind.

But if sq  is evolving towards DQ, and DQ is undefined and not 
chaotic, doesn't DQ  equate to change?  At this point, I understand 
this to mean that sq is  evolving towards its origin, DQ.

Marsha

Mark 31-10-06: I'm not persuaded DQ equates to change.
It looks like we have two modes of change in the MoQ:
1. Dynamic Quality disrupting sq patterns.
2. sq patterns disrupting sq patterns.
 
Examples of mode 2. changes:
There are a number of changes which result from a collapse of evolutionary  
advances: Catastrophic damage to the supporting biosphere due to  random 
impacts, plate shifts, Social collapse due to epidemic, fires,  etc.
 
If it should happen that a static pattern called a meteor strikes the  
patterns of the Earth, sq disrupts sq at the Inorganic (gravity) level and  
everything above it becomes fragile.
It also looks as if an A-bomb detonation may be regarded as mode 2. change?  
The Intellectual dynamic which went into the production of an A-bomb may 
involve  plenty of mode 1. changes, but the detonation is pure inorganic mess.
 
Here is an argument: "We should detonate enough A-bombs to obliterate  
Humanity and allow DQ to begin again because Humanity has shown it has no  concern 
for the Biosphere?"
There are Pragmatic grounds generated by the MOQ which could be used to  
argue for this.
But, the destruction of Humanity involves mode 2. change and is not Dynamic  
Quality driven evolution.
 
A close look at, 'change' produces some interesting results. If we think of  
change in terms of values, what is going on?

It seems straight cut to me that some values are static, some values are  
chaotic, and some values are Dynamic.
It's the Dynamic patterns our language has a problem with, even now we have  
the language of the MoQ.
How can patterns, which are supposed to be static, be Dynamic also?
The language is confusing don't you think?
One way around it is to talk of DQ, 'disrupting' patterns, allowing  patterns 
to rearrange themselves into better (or worse) relationships. This way,  DQ 
doesn't sound as if it is always an influence for good. (We are not  
considering examples of sq disrupting sq mode 2. changes here.)
But there is more - the Dynamic rearrangement of sq patterns looks like it  
can arrange them into patterns which, 'hover' in a state which is very much 
less  patterned, and very much more disrupted than usual. This is coherence. When 
sq  patterns are like this, DQ 'shines through' to use a visual metaphor.
I hope this helps and does not introduce confusion Marsha?
Love,
Mark