[MD] Is this the inadequacy of the MOQ?

[John Carl]

Hi JA,


Mass, shape and effect, different sides of the coin.

Got the picture?


John:

That's quite a picture.  It sorta stabs all over the place.  A sorta
impressionistic slap-dash of color and contrast.

On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 4:26 AM, Jan-Anders <jananderses at telia.com> wrote:


> What is the Value of MD, is it to wide, to crazy or does it make sense?
>
> What was before cause and effect? The condition that made cause and effect
> possible to be.


John:

Unless you're gonna tie "the birth of cause and effect" to the "Value of MD"
somehow, I have no idea where you're going with this one.  A shotgun blast
perhaps, trying to make sure and hit the target.  But if so, what is the
target?  Cause and effect?  Or MD?

Ah, I see.  It is cause and effect you are bothered by.  don't be.


> It is very hard to imagine what was before cause and effect was possible.


Yes, very hard indeed.  "cause and effect" are human tools of understanding,
correct?  Tools that work reliably most of the time.  But don't take the
concept fundamentally.  That would be bad metaphysics, no?

Or as dmb likes to put it (prolly cuz he thinks it makes him sound cool)
"reify."

Actually, I admit, it does make one sound pretty cool.  Ham tossed it off at
me one when Marsha asked his take on a snippet of Royce I'd sent him.
"refies", ham sniffed.  As if that answers all questions... I mean,
everybody does, right? But I had to concede, it sure made him sound cool.

Even tho it's admittedly degenerate,  we all reify.

Ironically tho!  See?  That makes all the difference.

JA:

But we can understand what conditions that must be present for any event to
> occur. We have raw energy (which can be the result of the possibility of
> energy into materia and antimateria), the mathematic connections that
> separates the possible combinations from the impossible and third, we have
> the time space for the energy to expand into building particles, molecules
> and unconsciuos repeated patterns up to the 4 levels of dynamic quality.
>
>
John:

Hmmm... I don't quite think you're sounding ironic enough there.  You seem
to be taking this very seriously, this 'definition of reality" stuff.  And I
think you miss an important point also, pehaps as an effect.  The levels are
discrete.  You don't really explain much with "energy patterns", except on
the level of inorganic patterns.  And to explain anything higher I'd say is,
reductionistic.  If I wanted to sound cool, that is.  Otherwise I'd just say
"wrong".

JA:


> The I is in the centre of the 3-D pattern of quality for any event.




John:  See, right there, I have a problems with equating an "i" and a 3-d
spatial reference, because those oughta be kept seperate conceptual patterns
that don't really speak on the same level at all.   But leaving aside such
quibbles.

JA:


> It is the answer on the question "Hi there stranger, how do you choose?"
> (How do you sort your valuations?   Hey babe, what sign r u?)
>

John:

Yes, that sounds right.  Q & A, Call and Response, narrative flow, a
definition that arises in conversation with otherness.  "I" am realized in
relation to other.

Now we're on the right track:

JA:


>  From the first choice of taking the first breath. (Not the 1st but at an
> early state for the personality. Some choose unconsciosly not to start
> breathing at birth.)
>


John:  Now you are getting into trick territory.  And I'm likely to take off
on a wild tangent.  Because that is a very, very important point.  When does
the individual arrive, come into being?  I believe this is a validly chosen
social and cultural definition, that varies widely and has no one "right"
answer.  I heard of a northern tribe of people, who wait a few weeks.  See
how the food supply is going, and then vote the individual into being based
upon pragmatic concerns.  Doesn't sound unwise to me.  But for my time and
place, I think the first draw of breath would be a good place to draw the
line.  However, that is my male-oriented, everything-in-it's-place mentality
speaking, and I believe there is an even better answer available to us
called "woman's choice".  An individual comes into being by woman's choice,
and where you draw the line is entirely up to her.  If she's named it, and
cradles it, and draws it out by choice, then it's an individual already,
even before breath.  If she doesn't want it, doesn't wish to bring a child
into the world she sees around her, then it's not really a person.  It's
some tissue that might have been a person if somebody cared enough to
nurture it into being.  Flesh has no individual identity, except through
choice.

 Only a  choice can bring an individual into being.

 JA:


>
> Every choice is between several possibilities, all with the potential to
> either increase or decrease the total value of your personal event on earth.
> The event that is as long as you live in this world.
>

John:

Well, I think our "event" surpasses us.  In the same way our lives are so
much more than a mere passing of sensations,  but take meaning and purpose
from the patterns of history and the ideas of those before us, so too do we
continue on with our own influences, into the unseen future, and so when I
ask questions of value, I would like to consider questions that are bigger
than my own time span.  Living for immortal principle is all the immortality
I'll ever understand or want.

Hmmm... I think I might just frame that one, and stick it up on my wall
somewhere.

If I had a wall, that is.

JA


> Is something missing?
> Do I have to change something in me?
> How can I use what I already got right?
>
> Breath on, tune in, drop out... T Leary
>
>
John:

I tend to drop in, tune out and breathe, but everybody has their own ways.
Some  need gurus to find theirs and I'll never get along with those people,
that's for sure.  They annoy me.   Probably one of many good reasons why
I'll never be a guru.  All my followers would annoy the hell outta me.

JA:


> Unconscious I's, like bacterias and bible fundamentalists, their choices
> are based on their automated pattern evolved by darwinistic selection,
> different and new choice is done by mutations and succesful mutations are
> repeated as approven choices. "We're doing as usual and that's our
> distinctive feature. Mutations are evil and against the creation."
>
>
John:  Well there again, I don't think the explanatory patterns of biology
are helpful at the social level.  I've always had a problem with "law of the
jungle" used as a metaphor in explaining various cultural patterns or as a
value.

But sure, as a metaphor, I get where that's coming from.  Just don't reify
is all.

Hey.  I'm starting to really like that word.

The highest value of any social pattern. taken as a whole,  is probably
size.  Whether you're ants, bees or chinese, when the lot of you, and all
who think like you and talk like you and follow the same rules, cover the
whole planet, you win.  That's social quality - cancer. is social quality.
Every social pattern aspires to cancerous growth, isolated from intellect.

JA:


> Societies are made up of material and economic volume as the mass, the
> weight of the state. The manner of the civilisation are managed by dogmatic
> instincts and legal system. Ther must also be a freedom to evolve into
> anything new. Ideas and thinking can't be regulated or sold as property.
> This is the basic theme of "Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité". (Liberty,
> Equality, Brotherhood) the motto of the state of France and Haiti. Freedom
> of thinking and speech. Juridical Equality. Brotherhood in the economic
> welfare. Any enterprise is dependant of its surrounding partners.
>
>
John:

I agree.  The reason we don't have cancerous social growth is because of
reason.  There's no such thing as an isolated social pattern.  Intellect
controls society and more intellectual societies conquers less intellectual
societies.

When intellect itself becomes the social cancer, then you have problems.
Which we do, but its a new and different problem and at least that is
exciting.

 JA:

Governments has to choose if they shall support the economic growth by
> mortgaging tax incomes of the year 2025 and spread the money on todays open
> market, tighten or loosing laws and taxes or spend more money on risky
> projects as NASA or the Rethoric department at the University of Bozeman.


John:  :-)  I don't think we have to worry about 2025, tho.  I think the
last party in power was pretty sure jesus was comin' in 2012, and thus
figured we wouldn't have to look furthur down the road than that.

JA:


> All in its effort to confirm the political I-dentity of the party in power
> which are supposed to be a unbroken continuation of the nations identity
> since it was born. Increasing the Value of the nation as an event with
> quality. Who knows, some day we will see a political party whos program is a
> total make over and change of the USA into a new France, or Haiti.
>
> Mass, shape and effect, different sides of the coin.
>
> Got the picture?
>
> JA
>
>
An expressionistic slap dash indeed.  Thanks for letting me smear all over
it.

John