From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sat May 08 2004 - 17:12:22 BST
DM and all:
David M wrote:
Also it is hard to describe where a river falls into the four levels.
It is inorganic I suppose but it is not subject to any self-organising
characteristics like a crystal or an organism. There are clear
dynamic and contingent aspects to its form, whereas the entities
related to the levels focuses on the static forms of atoms, molecules,
organisms, social behaviour and ideas. Rivers are as a result of the
interaction of inorganic patterns in contingent ways forming a mixed
contingency related pattern. Human beings are like this too and also
involving more levels. Would you agree with this?
dmb replies:
Forming a mixed contingency related pattern? This is unclear to me. In any
case, I just wanted to respond to the idea that a river "is not subject to
any self-organizing characteristics." About ten or twelve years ago, I
learned otherwise. A Brit by the name of John Wilkes went out and studied
rivers in order to develop naturalistic fountain-like sculptures that he
calls "flow forms". He learned some interesting things about rivers and
water along the way and presented his findings at a conference that I
attended. It seems that rivers DO exhibit some self-organizing
characteristics. The middle stages of a river, for example, don't just flow
along the path of least resistance as a powerless victim of gravity and the
landscape. (The middle stages of a river refers to that part which is
neither the young rushing white water of the mountains nor the old wide part
that empties into the sea.) Instead, the middle stages "like" to slow down
and undulate rather than rush to the sea and they even seem to play a role
in carving out a meandering path. Further, the back and forth of the flowing
water organized the water molecules in some pretty amazing ways. This was
the most astonishing aspect of Wilkes' presentation. He projected photos
he'd taken through a microscope. The water molecues that had gone through
the undulation process were beautiful, bright while the water molecules that
had NOT been allowed to flow naturally appeared to be tattered, malformed
and dead. They then tested these two kinds of water, which were identical
except for the undulation process. Both kinds were equally clean, oxygenated
and all that. They tested it by simply using it to water plants and, you
guessed it, the more organized and beautiful form of water grew much larger
and healthier plaints. Plants don't do studies, look through microscopes or
attend conferences, but they knew what was better.
If anyone is interesting in finding out more about this stuff, I'd suggest
starting with a search using "flowform" and "John Wilkes". I doubt if he's
the only one looking into such things, but he would get you rolling.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
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 - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat May 08 2004 - 17:17:05 BST