[MD] Crystallising Chaos.

[Squonkonguitar at aol.com]

Sorry I have been a bit preoccupied the last couple of days and unable  to
get back to you. You clarified a number of things in our last exchange.  We
seem to agree at least on the use of some terms so I think this time I  will
give you some idea of how I see those terms.

Random thoughts on  Chaos:

You and Pirsig seem to be mostly talking about Good Old Fashioned  Chaos
(GOFC). It is not a bad place to start after all the Chinese,  Greeks,
Hebrews, Mayans and just about every other ancient cosmology start  there.
 
Mark: Hello Case.
Yes, that's it. 

Case: "In the beginning God created the  heavens and the earth and the earth 
was
without form and void."

Or  something like that.
 
Mark: Yes.

Case: In some ways this seems similar to Platt's ideal of  freedom. It is 
existence
without constraint. Or perhaps it is more like the  mystical notion of
nonexistence without boundaries or attachment or any kind.  I like to think
of it as a field of possibility or as Douglas Adams would  have it an
improbability field. There can not, of course, exist a totally  unconditioned
field of unstructure, as you would have it, because as soon any  state of
coherence whatsoever is achieved, pure randomness, absolute  freedom
dissolves. At the moment that any static state coalesces, a  relationship is
formed. A division occurs between the unstructured and the  structured;
between form and formlessness. The static state puts a constraint  on the
freedom that surrounds it. In effect a degree of freedom is lost. Also  note
that while it can be argued that this is insensible without an observer,  in
principle neither an observer nor a causal agency, in the traditional  sense,
are required. 

G. Spencer Brown takes this way over my head in  his "Laws of Form". Where
Euclid began with, "A point is that which hath no  extent" Brown begins with,
"Draw a distinction." In Euclid, relationship does  not begin until there are
two points. With Brown relationship comes  first.
 
Mark: Interesting.
If we partake of sq we are never going to completely escape it and so will  
be free in only a narrow sense.
The example i always think of is this: We can't grow an extra biological  arm 
no matter how much we want one.
But, at the intellectual level we can drop patterns in creative leaps, and  i 
think that is freedom of a high magnitude.
Any situation that is fluid and fine edged is where it's at - the finer the  
edge the higher the degree of unmediated manipulation.
That's what i call coherence.

Case: But let me take something of a  metaphysical leap into a more concrete
analogy. I am borrowing this from  something I ran into recently; I can
supply a reference if you are  interested. Take a pool of water. All of the
water molecules in it are equal  and uniformly distributed. The only
constraint on any particular molecule is  the molecules around it. The
surface of the pool is uniform. No point on it  is different or can be
distinguished from any other point. If you throw a  pebble into the pond, the
point where the pebble enters the pond becomes  distinct from all the other
points. Concentric ripples expand from that  central point and all of the
other points on the surface are brought into a  relationship to that point.
If you throw in more pebbles more ripples form  and relationships emerge
among the ripples. Crests and troughs interact.  Where two crests meet they
get higher. Where two troughs met the surface dips  lower. Where crest meets
trough, they cancel each other out. Note that in the  pool these
relationships exist in three dimensions but are most clearly seen  at the
surface.

The point is that complexity not only emerges but  grows exponentially from
very, very simple sets of relationships. 

But  just to make SA happy lets say we are sitting watching of the surface  of
Walden Pond on a still day and the surface is perfectly flat. I hear the  cry
of an osprey in the distance and grasshoppers are mating on your shoe.  A
rain drop falls and set of concentric ripples starts to spread across  the
surface of the pond. Then another rain drop falls and then another. If it  is
a gentle rain, patterns of ripples will begin to emerge on the surface.  If
they are widely disbursed regular states and coherent patterns  of
relationships may be seen, as bulls eyes of water meet and connect  and
interact with each other. From the various patterns emerging in the  falling
rain, we see the ideas of harmony and resonance taking shape by  virtue of
the interactions of the ripples. Static patterns of crests,  troughs, hills,
valleys and plains will dance across that  surface.

Everything about this set of interactions can be precisely  specified
mathematically. As Laplace dreamed, if we knew the starting  position of
every particle, we could predict the instantaneous shape of the  pond's
surface at any given moment.

As the rain falls faster the  osprey flies home to its nest, the grasshoppers
hop away satisfied and the  surface of the pond become increasing difficult
to calculate. Harmonies are  broken. Chaos ensues. The degree of chaos
changes with the amount of energy  or disturbance introduced by the rain
drops. It is possible that at various  levels of rain fall higher level
patterns emerge and waves begin to lap the  shore. The osprey goes fishing
and grasshoppers start surfing on oak  leaves.

But let's back up a second. To have the surface of Walden Pond  just
described, you must have a quantity of water to make up the pond, the  earth
for it to rest in, the air above it for the rain clouds to form in and  two
dudes wishing they could be as lucky as grasshoppers lounging on the  shore.
Each of these elements and any you care to add introduce new  relationships
and increasing levels of complexity into the scene. As Pirsig  told his
writing students start with the first brick at the top of the  building and
start writing. Pretty soon you can't stop. 

But I think I  should.
 
Mark: There is an idea mooted in the first of these threads which suggests  
that chaos as an initial state was transformed into order by DQ by introducing 
a  self similar harmonic. Can this work in your opinion?
The next step would be for the initial harmonic to evolve.
Walden's Pond as a patterns of inorganic sq is closer to the  initial 
harmonic than the Osprey.
The Pond is very limited in its freedom - it is very static.
Perhaps it is no wonder its behaviour can be examined with precision?
As evolution becomes more complex - Osprey, social institutions,  
intellectual patterns - examination becomes overwhelming.
But we can still look for excellent relationships?
It's almost obscenely simple to describe these as coherent patterns of sq,  
but why not?

Case: To summarize:

While GOFC may exist, any set of  relationships that occur in it, limit its
freedom. It becomes less dynamic  spontaneously and acausally. Or at least
cause and effect emerge as forms of  relationship.
 
Mark: Seems good to me.

Case: Once you get a set of relatively  static relationships going, even a 
chaotic
system begins to behave  deterministically if not predictably. Harmony,
resonance, "equal to" "greater  than", "less than", "and", "or", "nor" are
all examples of types of static  relationship.
 
Mark: OK.
Organic patterns appear to fight against the Inorganic relationships. Would  
you agree?

Case: I have purposely avoided MoQ terminology for the most  part but it is my
belief that the value of the MoQ is in providing a  metaphysical basis for
understanding the coherence of static relationships  and how they interact
dynamically. But this requires a bit of tweaking in  accepted definitions of
Pirsig's terms.
 
Mark: I may be wrong, but i think we can leave DQ/sq and four evolutionary  
related levels alone AND do some tweaking.
It's become clear to me that all my talk of coherence is an attempt to  
describe DQ in terms of sq.
But as Pirsig attempts to describe Quality in terms of DQ and sq i think it  
was only a matter of time before someone did anyway?

Case: Ok I stretched  and over stepped a bit with the summary but... Oh well.

Case

p.s.  So Mark what kind of guitar to you play? I have a '72 custom shop
Telecaster  with dual humbuckers and a Strat neck.
 
Mark: Nice choice.
I once fell in love with an old Tele with jumbo frets - it was a dream, and  
then there's that sound? I love them, and i wouldn't mind one!
Nothing else sounds like em.
The Strat neck is an unusual move, but why not? I don't recall seeing one  
like that before.
I'm a huge fan of Steve Hackett and he's been playing Fernandes guitars for  
about 10 years now.
When i finally got the chance to try one (they are not available i the UK)  i 
had to have it. The Fernandes Ravelle has a built in E-bow which gives you  
infinite sustain and the ability to leap up an octave at will. The neck is  
Gibson like but not as chunky, and the sound is a bit on the Gibson side  too.
Because the E-bow is in the body of the guitar your hands are free in the  
conventional manner - no mucking about with an external gismo; you just flick a  
small toggle switch and the E-bow energises the strings at the note you 
happen  to be playing. This works clean or dirty. Flick a second toggle switch  and 
the note leaps up an octave.
While the E-bow is on you can use vibrato, bend, slide, tap and the note  
just keeps going.
Fernandes sell a kit of the sustainer as they call it you can fit to your  
own guitar.
I think you would miss your twin Humbuckers though as the sustainer  replaces 
one of the pickups.
 
I could send you an MP3 of Sir Steve if you like?
 
Love,
Mark