[MD] Energy, Pattern and Value

[rapsncows at fastmail.fm]

Jan-Anders,

thanks again for the significant effort.  I see your three dichotomies
as having a great deal of pragmatic value - well, at least I can start
to see the value for me, which might be a bastardization of what you
mean - and I can sense that it is high value to you.  Here I would make
a comparison to RMP's 4 static levels.  I have read 'Lila' just once,
and I think I didn't have the capacity to notice the intricacies of how
he handled them precisely. I mean, I think I got the gist nailed down,
and quite a bit more, but I think I could benefit from rereading it,
putting  lot of focus on a distinction between how these levels are
handled vis-a-vis an intra- and extra- personal manner.  I wonder if he
played fast and loose with this distinction in order to make the book
more readable...

Anyway, this Polanyi guy I referenced (Personal knowledge), and again,
my memory for this (in detail) is pretty much shot by now, but the point
was that ALL knowledge is personal.  Whether there is subjective and
objective, and real, etc., all knowledge comes through the lens of the
knower...  So, in this light, when I look at the chair over there, I can
say that I am looking at the chair over there, but this knowledge is
personal to me, for one (and if you look at a chair right now that
knowledge can be personal to you - and if you were here we could look at
the same chair, perhaps, ...), but for two, if I stick to RMP handling,
that pattern, 'chair', is internal to me.  So I am left quarreling with
myself as to whether I can speak of an external chair at all.  It comes
down entirely to belief!  I can touch the chair, but still that could be
mere pressure on my skin which confirms an 'illusion' and an external
chair.  For any method of sensing that chair, someone - especially in
this forum - can put together a really solid, intelligent, argument that
it is an 'illusion', what you sense is what YOU sense, no more, etc. and
etc.  I want to know if there is a way for us to redeem the word
'objective' in such a way that, while arguments against it might be real
solid and intelligent, we can safely put them aside as still flawed. 
Can we say that the insistence on 'illusion' is the 'illusion'?  Either
way, though, it seems a leap of faithe.

More comments within:


On Wed, 05 Jan 2011 14:35:18 +0100, "Jan-Anders" <jananderses at telia.com>
said:
> Tim
> 
> My general purpose is to show that it is impossible to put everything 
> about Quality in one single flat box.

[Tim]
yes.  this was the hardest pill for me to swallow about RMP's
metaphysics too.  But I have not succeeded in countering the assertion. 
And I cannot see that you have either, yet.  This is not to say that you
haven't, but I am certainly not convinced that you have.


> [Jan-Anders] It is true that you can see 
> anything from a personal view, but it is also true that we can discuss 
> and agree what we see in common unbiased and objectively like just a 
> string of letters in a row without any prejudical statement. We can also 
> stay by counting the number of them regardless which order they come to 
> be sure that there is absolutely something there.

[Tim]
But anything that comes from you must be known by me.  So, one might
argue, I can't really even discuss with you, but I only recognize a
discussion within myself between some representative pattern I call you,
and some representative pattern I call little-provincial-me.

> 
>[Jan-Anders] RMP's distinction of 4 levels value patterns is counting with these 
> three classes simultaneously. Every level has its energy volume and true 
> isness, its pattern and useful value. Lila's quality was based on that 
> she was there, she was fine but not maybe the perfect match for Bob. 
> Like onion shells in an abstract 3D-hypersphere made of the three 
> independent dichotomies.

[Tim]
I see that your three dichotomies are to be used in a similar manner as
RMP's 4 levels.  I guess it is just that RMP has given me a whole two
books in which he laid it out, and with you I have had only a few
emails.  Chop chop on that book!  Anyway, I am not able to synthesize
your three dichotomies into a working structure yet, but this is to be
expected.  Also, though, I think I am struggling to interpret
(Hermanutical) you meaning; I think your examples have clouded the
picture for me, because every example will be composed of all three
dichotomies, and unless you are real, real specific about the aspect on
which you are focusing, I just see the example and not the three
dichotomies, maybe...

> 
>[Jan-Anders] It is impossible to connect all laws of physics into one single system 
> only. That is the reason why we have more than one law of thermodynamics 
> (there are four). So far I'm satisfied with three. At the time when you 
> understand this it will be much easier to solve the questions waving 
> through this forum. Or there will be three times more of possible 
> solutions....

[Tim]
Whoa!  About the first sentence!  Big statement.  Do you mean that the
system cannot be a single, *Simple*, system?  The laws of thermodynamics
are grouped into the single, non-simple, system: 'thermodynamics'.

Next, are you suggesting that your three dichotomies match with three of
the laws of thermodynamics.  (Not 4: I suppose you are hateful of the
idea of a truly absolute zero too!)

> 
>[Jan-Anders] The best way to understand hermeneutical is ...
>
>[SNIP]
>
> Do you remember the happy days of the 
> fifties when everybody got job and you could buy just anything you 
> needed, no more war and everything expressed in ads and films. That 
> happiness is just something else than todays black cloth of depression.

[Tim]
I snipped a bunch, but thanks.  Remember the happy days of the fifties? 
No, I don't ;)
 
> [Jan-Anders] Over to the motorcycle metaphor to keep reference with ZMM:
> Ben Bernankes motorcycle chokes, instead of gearing down he asks for a 
> bigger cylinder.
> The German motorcycle is gearing down but unfortunatley the gearbox was 
> made in Greece.
> The Chinese motorcycle is made of pure PVC, look vely nice but you can't 
> make it through the curve as the whole frame bends over and send you out 
> in the rough.
> 
> A biker with a sense of high Quality, handles his gas and gear in a 
> proper manner and do never ever buy a plastic toy to ride in 80 mph.

[Tim]
this was very entertaining!

> Hope you enjoy the ride.
> 
> Jan-Anders

I hope you enjoy the ride too.
Tim
-- 
  
  rapsncows at fastmail.fm

-- 
http://www.fastmail.fm - IMAP accessible web-mail