[MD] Energy, Pattern and Value

[rapsncows at fastmail.fm]

Jan-Anders,
thanks for your reply.

comments below:

> [Jan-Anders] I can clearly see the difference between 
> romantic trend mongers and greysuited certified accountants.

[Tim]
what about a romantic certified monger?  I was referring to myself, but
I'm Joking.

> 
>[Jan-Anders] To start with the first dichotomy; there are things that are and there 
> are things that are not. Things as just anything conceptable. Something 
> is commanding the nature of universe and separates the things that are 
> from the things that are not. "To be or not to be". Actually we cannot 
> tell what the things that not are, because if we know, then they exist 
> as concepts in our mind at least.

[Tim]
but then why do you insist that there are things that are not?  Why does
this first dichotomy not reduce to being synonymous with the second?


> [Jan-Anders] The number zero is the general 
> mathematic description for anything that is not.

[Tim]
uuuuuuuuuhhhhhhhh...   The number zero represents the *particular*
absence of an otherwise conceivable one ('thing').

> [Jan-Anders] 1 is the smallest 
> integer in that dichotomy. If it's is-ness is true then it is 1 
> otherwise it is 0.

[Tim]
perhaps you have said the same thing, but there is a difference between
general and particular.  I have zero home-brewed beers right now, but
the lack of is-ness is mine, particular, not general.

>[Jan-Anders] To talk in MD language we can say that if there is a 
> static pattern for something, then it is. The evidence is the regular 
> Cartesian "Cogito ergo sum". The universe is filled with such things, 
> big and small, each one as a lump of being proven by this first 
> dichotomy: to be or not to be and most of them following the first law 
> of entropy. I'm not really sure about the amount of real energy in a 
> joke, but if you can laugh at it, it have be an absolute reality.

[Tim]
first law of entropy?  I am not familiar with this nomenclature.  To
what do you refer?

> 
>[Jan-Anders] Dichotomy nr two is this; Anything that *is* has some kind of possible 
> pattern separated from the impossible patterns.

[Tim]
do you mean regarding the future?  This could make the distinction
between your first and second dichotomies acceptable to me.  The first
dichotomy is one of the present, and the second dichotomy is for the
future.  Am I reading you right?  Yes, maybe, you did say: "to talk in
MD language we can say that if there is a static pattern for something,
then it is."

>[Jan-Anders] These patterns that 
> evoke an Oh shit! instead of an Aha! Why a triangle is made up of three 
> points and making an area inside. We know that every atom and particle 
> inside the atoms are moving around so it is to hard to see that anything 
> you see is just energy in movement and the characteristic movement is 
> its pattern. Chemists, physicists and dentists know that there are 
> something that separates possible patterns from impossible patterns. 
> Like using post-its to fix a waterleakage, low quality, bad dynamic 
> pattern. Or trying to define a room with only two variables. It is 
> interesting that the maths that describe area, room, space and movement, 
> are using the independent maths that describe the amount and mass from 
> the first dichotomy. They're just completing each other to make the 
> picture. This is the objective, unbiased class, were we can agree about 
> the result of the analysis. A rose is a rose is a rose. (G. Stein).

[Tim]
Jan-Anders, I have to admit that this all went past me.  But maybe we
can clear it up.
1) 'Oh shit' v. 'aha'.  When I think of the possible-impossible
divide...  well, I am glad for it generally, but particularly, sometimes
it is unfavorable, i.e. 'Oh shit', but other times it is very favorable,
'thank goodness'.
2)people, like chemists and dentists (and I would think most living
things too), have to admit to the impossible, but decide amidst the
possible.  We set our decision between one possible option, and another
possible option (and usually a whole lot of these).
3)where did we get 'mass' from 'the first dichotomy'?
4)about objective, this is a real tough slog...  I have to remain
skeptical.

> 
>[Jan-Anders] So what's left? Just anything, any event or process have some mass and a 
> shape of pattern so what? The answer and the third Dicothomy is the 
> pragmatic one, the one about the value, or what it is worth for Other 
> things. To be able to look at one single thing we have to isolate it 
> from the rest. "This" is a name of something isolated from the rest of 
> the world. The value of this is then compared to to the rest of the 
> world or at least a part of it. The third dichotomy is the general 
> conditions that dictate how things are related to each other. How to put 
> 4 elephants into a Volkswagen and like. (2 in the front seat and two in 
> the back of course). There is universal rules and natural laws that you 
> never can change and they tell what is possible and not when putting 
> things together or just trying to find a relation between them. The 
> pragmatic value and usefulness of anything is absolutely regulated by 
> this third perpetual force. But as you understand the freedom is total, 
> the number of possibilities for combinations are infinite. Any view from 
> one to another is unique and totally subjective. The maths in this class 
> is about statistics and probabilities. Independent from but still 
> working with the arithmetics and absolute integers.
> 
> This is just the basic outlines of the "tricothomy" that I think must to 
> be used for just anything regarding it's quality. We can surely discuss 
> if these three are static patterns also and if the Quality is behind 
> them too, but I see them as quite static and hard to put aside.
> 
> It can be used on MD, motorcycle maintenance or home brewing. Its 
> impossible to try to think in just one class and try to fit in 
> everything in just a flat system of concepts. It's hermeneutical, 
> analytical and pragmatic simultaneously.
> 
> Some examples:
> MD: Is it to less or to many submissions? Are they right or weird? Are 
> they interesting or just boring?
> Motorcycle: Is the tank filled? Is the machine working? Do you like 
> driving in the rain?
> Home brewing: You need barley malt, hop, yeast and water. Don't add the 
> hop to early. How about the taste?
> 
> Next step is about time and money and that popular stuff but I think 
> I'll save that for my book.
> 
> Jan-Anders


Maybe I'll leave off questions about the third dichotomy for now.

all the best,
have fun with your writing,
Tim
-- 
  
  rapsncows at fastmail.fm

-- 
http://www.fastmail.fm - Faster than the air-speed velocity of an
                          unladen european swallow