From: Ilya Korobkov (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Aug 24 2004 - 10:18:20 BST
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! :)
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - email@example.com
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