[MD] Chrystallizing Chaos

[Ham Priday]

Mark and All --

Since Mark claims his 'Cosmogony' was inspired by something in our dialogue,
I feel obliged (somewhat belatedly) to comment on it.  He might also be
interested to know that I received a request to forward his original post on
this subject to an ex-MD participant.

For those who might be wondering, 'cosmogony' is a seldom used metaphysical
term that refers specifically to the "genesis" of creation, as distinguished
from the structure and form of the cosmos which is Cosmology.  In other
words, cosmogony deals with the "how" rather than the "what" of creation.

Not to demean Mark's well articulated concept, or the logic supporting it, I
should also note that my philosophy of Essence makes many of the basic
questions he raises unnecessary.  For example:

Mark:
> Question 1. 'Are Chaos and DQ the same thing'?
> Answer: No.

The same answer holds for Essence in which there is no chaos, either in its
non-contradictory identity or in its actualized appearance.

Mark:
> Question 2. If Chaos is not DQ and if Chaos is not
> structure, what is  it?
> Answer: Unstructured relationships between sq simples.
> The answer i wish to work with involves describing Chaos
> in terms of sq: Chaos is unstructured relationship between
> sq simples.
> This allows further assertions:
> sq simples are capable of becoming coherent.
> Coherence is a state between sq simples which is excellent
> and opaque to DQ.
> b. The opposite of Chaos is stasis.
> c. Primary sq simples may be either: completely static,
> not even Chaotic!  or Aspects of Chaos itself.
> (I favour the possibility that sq simples are aspects of Chaos;
> Chaos is noise; complete absence of unity: Chaos all
> the way down.)
> d. There are no MoQ levels below Chaos.
> While complete stasis may be the furthest away from DQ
> it may be possible to get, complete stasis may be the waste
> product of evolution?
> The original state may be Chaos, and Chaos may have more
> value than complete stasis.

I still haven't learned what "simples" are, but assume them to be equivalent
to "findamentals".  Most of this dissertation is speculative, so there's
little point in addressing it.  It presupposes a hybrid cosmology comprising
both chaotic and static elements, but originating as chaos.  (My personal
view is that that anything experienced as "chaotic" is a result of the
limitations of finite sensibility.)

Mark:
> Question 3. If Chaos was overcome in order for
> Inorganic patterns to establish themselves, was chaos a
> transition phase between pre-inorganic and organic patterns,
> or is chaos pre-inorganic value itself?
> Answer: Evidence for the transition view may be found in the
> following:
> 'In the chaos of social patterns a wild new intellectual
> experimentation could now take place. Abstract art, discordant
> music, Freudian psychoanalysis, the Sacco-Vanzetti trial,
> contempt for alcoholic prohibition.  Literature emphasized the
> struggle of the noble, free-thinking individual against the
> crushing oppression of evil social conformity.' (Lila. ch. 22)
>
> This quote seems to suggest that chaos is helpful for higher
> level advance. Chaos weakens relationships at lower levels
> while the immediately higher level becomes more coherent.

(Again, as I do not share this perspective of a multi-level universe, I will
refrain from comment.)

Mark:
> But it may also be inferred that Chaos was, at an early phase
> of value evolution, a primary component of reality:
> The inference may be drawn from the suggestion that
> coherence is increasing; if we have evidence for an increase in
> coherence then it may be inferred that chaos is that which is
> being left behind.

It is logical that, if evolution is a process moving from chaos to
coherence (e.g., molecular complexity), then what is left behind is chaos.
However, as I believe value perception is subjective, I can not comment on
"value evolution".

Mark:
> I considered how the MoQ explains how Inorganic patterns
> are used to create Biological patterns:
> 'Phædrus thought this ambiguity of carbon's bonding preferences
> was the situation the weak Dynamic subatomic forces needed.
> Carbon bonding was a balanced mechanism they could take over.
> It was a vehicle they could steer to all sorts of freedom by
> selecting first one bonding preference and then another  in
> an almost unlimited variety of ways.' (Lila. ch. 11)

The terms "preferences" and "steering to" suggests some form of conscious
attraction on the part of inanimate objects, which of course is illogical to
me.  As far as the MoQ is concerned, however, I don't see this idea as
anything new.

Mark:
> Question 4: 'What would DQ use in order to overcome
> Chaos to create structured Inorganic patterns?'
> Answer: A Self similar Harmonic.
> A self similar harmonic would Crystallise Chaos at a
> saturation point or 'sweet spot' within the chaotic relationships
> of sq patterns.

"Sweet spot" is one of Mark's favorite terms.  It might also be termed
"breaking point", "point of symmetry", "resonance" or "affinity level".
(Why not define it for us, Mark?)

Mark:
> If chaos is unrelation, then it may be legitimate to conjecture
> there is more than one variety of unrelation. Therefore, a
> particular variety of unrelation may be more open to
> crystallisation than all the others - and this may be what
> DQ used?

Suggestion: Instead of "unrelation", perhaps "incompatibility" or
"non-accommodation"?

Mark:
> Far reaching consequence of the Chaos Crystallised conjecture:
>
> A. The original self similar harmonic may resonate throughout all
> levels of the MoQ?
> It would therefore be no surprise when intellectual patterns
> such as mathematics and geometric modelling fit so well with
> inorganic behaviour.
> It would therefore be no surprise that Music and art resonate
> so well with mathematics.

This seems like a tautological argument to me.  That is, if
"self-similarity" is Mark's "sweet point" which facilitates harmony or
order, it follows that the harmony and order we experience in mathematics
and music represents this pattern.

Mark:
> B. This may provide an elegant explanation to the problem
> of keeping DQ undefined while explaining why harmony is
> so Dynamic: DQ created harmonics as a fundamental static
> aspect of Inorganic quality - i.e. the cosmos - Harmony is
> always there as a fundamental aspect of reality, and yet not DQ.
> Therefore, harmonic relationships are capable of becoming
> ever more coherent (open to DQ) at higher levels.

Is Mark suggesting that harmony "emerges" from chaos, appears in SQ
existence, only to disappear in DQ?  Such a progression seems illogical to
me.

Mark:
> C. Many have given me feedback concerning coherence
> and wanted to call it resonance or harmony.
> Now it becomes possible to define resonance and harmony
> as sq components of coherence which open up to DQ.
> In other words, the original self similar harmonic, while
> ultimately a fundamental aspect of inorganic reality, may
> also evolve at higher levels.  At certain nodes more evolved
> harmonics still resonate with the fundamental.  Artists
> (that is to say all human creatives from musicians to
> mathematicians),  'Tune in' so to speak.

Mark gives new meaning to the term Meta-Physics.  Not only is the world
physical, but so is its Creation (Creator?).  This should surely please
Pirsig -- 
he can now address the subject of creation without resorting to the
"supernatural"!

D. Thus Harmony and Resonance are not synonyms for DQ. This one  is
effectively dealt with.

If you say so.

Mark:
> E. To Ian (psybertron) this may provide an answer
> to your warning that coherence must be distinguished
> from equilibrium?
> Equilibrium may be seen as a settled state close to the
> fundamental harmonic, while coherence is a modification
> of the fundamental harmonic induced by DQ.

I didn't see the difference, until Mark said that "coherence is a
modification" of the fundamental harmonic.  If he explained that above, I
missed it.  I also don't see why the harmonics have to be modified, given
the "sweet spot" alignment or equilibrium point.  Harmony and Resonance need
not be "synonyms" for DQ but, rather, certain chaotic levels that are in
contact with DQ.   In that case, the terms Resonance, Harmony, and
Equilibrium might still be appropriate.

Mark:
> F. It may even be conjectured that Dark matter and
> Dark energy are harmonic nodes within the fundamental
> chaos that are outside observable inorganic sq patterns.
>
> MoQ cosmogony would then be a matter of Chaos as
> sq unrelation becoming ever more coherent sq relationships.
> This description leaves DQ undefined yet central to sq,
> because: 'Dynamic Quality is not structured and yet it is not chaotic.'

I don't care for the term "unrelation".  Maybe incoherence or asymmetry
would be linguistically better?  Also, your cosmogony runs from the ground
up, so to speak, in a progression that may be expressed symbolically as:
    Chaos ---> Harmony ---> Dynamic Quality
I have no problem with starting at the bottom.  But were you to believe, as
I do, that time is a mode of experience (not innate to the cosmos), the
reverse order makes little sense:
    Dynamic Quality ---> Harmony ---> Chaos (?)
That is, why would DQ (as a source) create Chaos to achieve Harmony which it
doesn't need?  I could conceive of proprietary awareness (experience)
"starting out" as chaotic and "tuning itself" to become aware of Harmony and
Value.  That makes more sense from my perspective.  Again, I don't see the
cosmos -- which, after all, is the differentiated appearance of the Source
(DQ) -- as having to be chaotic at all.  If we sense chaos, it is because of
our inability (as finite creatures) to comprehend the Source holistically,
as Oneness.  (Mark: See my Plotinus quote on this.)

Otherwise, I think you have posited a cosmogony worth considering by anyone
who believes existence is 'sui generis' and doesn't require a primary
source.  But what you're really chronicling here is the evolution of DQ, and
what may backfire on you is the notion that Quality starts out as Chaos.  I
don't expect the MoQers to find that idea very palatable.   But I may be
wrong.

Best wishes,
Ham