From: Ilya Korobkov (
Date: Tue Aug 24 2004 - 10:18:20 BST

  • Next message: Paul Turner: "RE: MD The individual in the MOQ"

    Hi Mark,

    Vac> Mark 22-8-04: ...Perhaps you would like to reflect upon
    Vac> the Stagnation/Coherence/Chaos continuum a little more?

    I think hard on the subject Mark, and the more I think the less I seem to
    understand, and the more weird looks the discussion itself...

    Vac> Mark 22-8-04: Indeed. Static patterning protects from too much Dynamic
    Vac> influence. What may be the optimum balance between openness and static protection?

    Protection OF WHAT, Mark? Static protection of static patterns? How
    can static patterns protect themselves? They EMERGE out of nothingness
    in the act of experience (DQ), don't they? And they do not become
    independent of DQ upon emergence, do not "live their own life" - they
    live as long as they are experienced, don't they? If so, what means
    "openness of static patterns to DQ"? They cannot be closed to DQ by
    definition! And cannot be MORE or LESS open to DQ - it just make no
    sense to say so!

    Oh hell, my head is gonna blow up...

    Vac> From The edge of chaos:
    Vac> The sweet spot is postulated as a coherent state somewhere between these two
    Vac> extremes. [Chaos and stagnation] At the sweet spot of Dynamic Quality (DQ), a
    Vac> pattern is neither too static or unstable.

    What do you mean when you say the [static] pattern may be TOO static or
    unstable? TOO static or unstable FOR WHAT? It seems to me the notion
    of "TOO" staticness or unstableness implies patterns can behave NOT
    the only right way. - Could it really be so? Could the things really
    go not the right way?

    (P.S.: I mean, for things to go not the right way, there should exist
    that "the only right way". And MOQ, as far as I know, doesn't
    postulate it's existence.)

    Vac> Mark 22-8-04: I really do not believe you or i need another term Ilya,
    Vac> "openness to DQ" may be rephrased, "patterned states open to DQ" because patterns
    Vac> are the only things in the MOQ other than DQ. I think that is just fine. All
    Vac> coherence does is take these, "patterned states open to DQ" and arranges them in
    Vac> a continuum from Stagnation (Hardly open to DQ at all) through Coherence
    Vac> (Harmonious openness to DQ) to Chaos (disruptive openness to DQ).

    I still cannot comprehend how you manage to unite concepts of
    staticness/dynamicness ("openness to DQ") and coherence/incoherence
    into one-dimensional picture. I see it as TWO-dimensional. The first
    dimension is the relation of static pattern to DQ, the second - the
    relation of static pattern to other static patterns.
    With the latter dimention there seem to be no problem: we agreed that
    the relationship between static patterns may well be described in
    terms "coherence" - "incoherence".
    With the former dimention I see big problems. I feel intuitively what
    ought to be described but I cannot conceptualize it. The description of
    static pattern as something separate and independent of DQ (it's
    being "protected" or "open to DQ") seems absurd now. Trying to measure
    "the intensity of experience", on the other hand, seems close to
    trying to say something about DQ itself - and is wrong on THAT reason.
    Maybe we should look closely not at patterns but AT THE PROCESS of emergence
    and passing away of static patterns? We may say, for example, that in
    some individuals the life span of static patterns is shorter then in
    others, right? May be this way of desctiption IS a solution, Mark?
    "The life span" approach...

    Vac> Mark 22-8-04: See? We are doing better than perhaps you thought?
    Vac> I hope this helps, let us keep moving forward! ;)

    Thank you for moral support, Mark! :)

    Best regards,

    MOQ.ORG -
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    Nov '02 Onward -
    MD Queries -

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Aug 24 2004 - 10:21:03 BST