[MD] Crystallising Chaos.

[ian glendinning]

Hi Mark (and Case)
I think the noise / feedback / art / quality axis is a good one for
your chaos / quality metaphor. Man and instrument (system) in
meta-stable harmony ... though of course "harmony" is ambiguous in the
traditional sense.

Big fan of controlled feedback myself - right from Hendrix tradition.
I didn't notice it had gone out of fashion :-)
Check out Sim Hamster for sympathetic Hendrix covers.
Current fave axemen are Matt Bellamy and Joe Satriani ... into heavier
rock than jazzy stuff these days (still / again ?)
Ian

On 9/11/06, Squonkonguitar at aol.com <Squonkonguitar at aol.com> wrote:
> <snip>
>
> [Case]
> It seems that what you are talking about is what happened  before the Big
> Bang, no?
>
> Mark: Hello Case.
> Yes, But i avoided cosmology by suggesting this was cosmogony.
> I've already committed myself to the view that the Cosmos is value.
>
> Case: If so I would have to defer to Hawkings who claims, that would
> be  unknowable. From the standpoint of the world as it is what ever  existed
> before that point is outside of the laws of physics and has no effect  on
> what came after it. Now of course that does not mean that it is not fun  to
> speculate. But what standard would you use to evaluate such  speculation?
>
> Mark: In the Metaphysics of Quality there's the morality called the "laws  of
> nature," by which inorganic patterns triumph over chaos...' (Lila. ch.  13)
> This made me think about the nature of GOFC.
> I thought that recent physics had developed the notion that there are
> something like 32 fields which existed before the Big bang, and by smashing
> particles together today physicists, 'excite' these fields and deduce their
> properties and relationships?
> It's the fields they are interested in, not the particles - the particles
> are a by product.
> I don't know where that leaves GOFC?
> Maybe we are going to be told the fields are eternal?
>
> Case: That said, what you or describing above is very similar to what  I
> originally thought Pirsig was getting at with Quality DQ and SQ. I  would
> shift the terms about a bit because this is how I have come to think  of
> them but the meaning is about the same.
>
> You have:
> DQ > Chaos  / SQ
>
> Mark: Hang on a mo Case.
> I've tried to be sneaky and describe chaos in terms of sq.
> The only way i could think of getting away with this was to describe chaos
> as an unstructured relationship between sq simples.
> Under pressure to give an account of myself, i called these simples values
> which do not value structure.
> Note that static and structure are not synonymous or i'm in trouble!
> So what i have is:
> DQ > Chaos (unstructured sq value) / sq (structured sq value)
> So, i can also agree with you when you say:
>
> Case: I would label  it:
>
> Quality > DQ / SQ
>
> Mark: Because sq includes both sq and chaos.
> Am i sailing too close to the wind?
>
> Case: I have always liked this  one because it follows a Taoist metaphysics
> which
> is near and dear to my  heart. But from the stand point of even GOFC a
> simpler and more monistic  formulation would be:
>
> Chaos > order/disorder
>
> Mark: A tiny tweak makes this: sq > Chaos (Unstructured sq  relationships) /
> Order (structured sq relationships)
>
> Case: I confess  to being a bit shakey on these points so your views are
> helpful
> but the one  point you keep making that bothers me is the implication that
> DQ has  intention and is an active agent. Why is this important to you?
>
> Mark: I can only appeal to evolution Case.
> The MoQ is all about value evolution. The earliest values are tiny little
> dharmas of moral order which have evolved into huge dharmas of higher moral
> codes.
> In other words, we have replaced Substance with moral order.
> There appears to be an arrow of moral evolution.
>
> Mark: Just as Biological sq values such as Cats and  Dogs  transform
> Inorganic sq patterns for their own survival, so Inorganic   patterns
> transform chaos for their own survival, Case: 'it is in the very  nature
> of change.'
>
> [Case]
> Do you really think that inorganic  structures are concerned with their own
> survival? How so?
>
> Mark: Yes, i do. It's an extrapolation from our observation of other
> patterns of behaviour.
> Biological patterns protect their structures, and social groups can be very
> resistant to progress and change.
> Robert Pirsig has noted that all structures have what appear to be a  Dynamic
> centre which is protected by a dead static barrier:
> 'This division of all biological evolutionary patterns into a  Dynamic
> function and a static function continues on up through higher levels  of
> evolution.  The formation of semi-permeable cell walls to let food in  and
> keep poisons out is a static latch.  So are bones, shells, hide,  fur,
> burrows, clothes, houses, villages, castles, rituals, symbols, laws  and
> libraries.  All of these prevent evolutionary degeneration.
> On  the other hand, the shift in cell reproduction from mitosis to meiosis
> to  permit sexual choice and allow huge DNA diversification is a  Dynamic
> advance.  So is the collective organization of cells into  metazoan
> societies called plants and animals.  So are sexual choice,  symbiosis,
> death and regeneration, communality, communication, speculative  thought,
> curiosity and art.  Most of these, when viewed in a  substance-centered
> evolutionary way are thought of as mere incidental  properties of the
> molecular machine.  But in a value-centered  explanation of evolution they
> are close to the Dynamic process itself,  pulling the pattern of life
> forward to greater levels of versatility and  freedom.' (Lila. ch. 11)
> Perhaps Protons have a static function which protects more Dynamic  quarks?
>
>
>
> [Case]
> Tasty jazzy sound from Hackett. I am out there  downloading some more. The
> guitar sound is great but at a couple of point  where he played one of
> those really long notes, it did sound a bit  sythesized. I did go the the
> Fernades site to see what that thing did and it  is pretty cool. Also
> looking to give that Brain May solo a second listen. I  have heard "I Want
> to Break Free" but never listened to it with the Roland  angle in mind. I
> wonder how the idea behind the sustainer applies to what we  are talking
> about above. After all what the sustainer is doing is introducing  positive
> feedback into the string vibration. In the old days this only  occurred
> when the amp volume was loud enough to introduce energy back into  the
> string vibration. The result as you know was a feedback loop  that
> uncontroled would fry the amp.
>
> Mark: I've often thought that in rock music feedback is perhaps  one of the
> most fluid relationships between player and instrument - the  proximity of the
> player to the Amp is a search for a sweet spot? Neil Young's  still at it but
> feedback seems to have gone out of fashion.
> Maybe allot of people think it's noise?
> The fernandes sustainer maintains a note without going over into feedback,
> and i think there's a diagram on the website showing how it's done. I'm not a
> tech though.
> Love,
> Mark
> 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/
>