[MD] Crystallising Chaos.

[Platt Holden]

> Ah but then again the "ignorance" bit in Platt's thread complicates
> things. In "ignorance" does something "exist" or not?

Well, as Pirsig suggested, nothing is something.

> Where the term ignorance is defined as an absence of any type of knowing
> (valuing) I interpret the MOQ to say that it does not.

Valuing is a form of knowing, but not always good. Consider the valuing 
by supporters of al Quada. 

> If chaos is pure ignorance, (360 mutual ignorance of values and
> concepts) it is the same as static values that are entirely unrelated to
> one another. Or where static values are so unrelated to anything that
> they cannot really be described as static.....

Is it possible for static values to be unrelated? I thought it was 
agreed that everything is connected.

> If DQ is the same as essence (and Ham is right on what essence is(n't))
> then those things that are in a state of ignorance are outside of
> existence.

Things can exist that we have no knowledge of, like what others are 
thinking and planning.

> Things become static then at the point that they are "known", but where
> "knowing" includes all classes of awareness/experience and manifest at
> all l levels.
> 
> Is there anything really unusual in saying that unknown things are
> uncertain?
 
No. But what's unusual is attributing power to the unknown as some 
scientists do in attributing part of evolution to chance and magical 
"emergences."


> >From: "Jos Laycock" <jos5 at hotmail.co.uk>

> >Perhaps, but Platt, this argument implies an objective reality, no? You
> >suggest that our language defines chaos as any state of being with
> >complexity beyond the perceptive abilities of the observer?
> >
> >I would suggest that it is "safer" to agree upon a conceptual
> >difference between observed events that appear chaotic and the implicit
> >definition we use for what the concept means.

Sorry. I don't understand.

> >In the MOQ I see most things as objectively unknowable (not definable
> >as absolute truths) to any observer, so chaos is hardly unusual in that
> >respect.

Pirsig says it's objectively, absolutely moral for doctor's to kill 
deadly germs -- an example of how the MOQ moral hierarchy can be used 
to make positive moral decisions.

> >Now I come to think about it its a rather definition defying concept in
> > SOM: As soon as you desribe it as something you give it form and as a
> >concept it becomes patterned, ceasing to be chaotic. Ie all
> >definitions, are by definition wrong, now where have I heared that
> >before?

Yes. Another paradox in a language leading inevitably to paradoxes, 
e.g., "There are no absolutes."

Platt