Hugo Fjelsted Alroe (alroe@vip.cybercity.dk)
Thu, 2 Oct 1997 20:14:56 +0100
<Magnus:
This might sound as if we just think real hard, we will eventually be able
to capture DQ within these systems also. I don't think we need to worry
about that though. For example, today it looks like quantum flux is very
much influenced by DQ, (which would actually contradict the fact that each
higher level is more dynamic than the lower, which in turn is an argument
to include it in the inorganic level... well). Maybe we'll one day be able
to describe quantum flux as complete as our description of matter is today,
but there will always be indecidable dynamic phenomenon somewhere.
:Magnus>
On the point about quantum flux and the dynamics of the levels:
I think we need to keep the basic Dynamic-Static distinction distinct from
the evolutionary stability or fragility of the levels. There has been some
work on these notions in the area of agro-ecosystem analysis (analysis of
the larger ecosystem with man as an actor), and sustainability is one of
the relevant terms there; I dont have it readily available though.
Quantum flux seems to me to be the basic sort of 'dynamic quality', and in
as much as every level rests on the lower, it has a part to play on every
level in this respect. But following Bo's account (the 'morality' theme) of
how a new level resist and limits the dynamics of the lower level (I have
met similar ideas in the field of hierarchy theory, but without the
necessary foundation of MoQ), it seems like the dynamics of quantum flux is
'guided' or 'controlled' or 'proper-term-here' by the stable patterns of
upper levels.
The above is not very clear, let me try again. In quantum theory we
investigate the very basics of the dynamic-static foundational dynamics of
our world. The dynamics we investigate on higher levels are historically
due to this basic dynamics, but the present dynamics depend on the stable
structures which have arisen through evolution. The dynamic quality of the
social level could be the meeting of new people (just an example), and this
dynamics is only very remotely connected to the quantum flux.
When we talk about how stable or fragile the levels are, these terms are
'meta' in some sense to the terms we use for the dynamics and stability
taking place on each level. There are dynamics involved at every scale or
level, we are stable as organism by way of inorganic dynamics
(~metabolism), ecosystems are stable by way of organismic dynamics
(~natural selection), and maybe intellect is stable by way of social
dynamics (~revolutions and social change). And I guess there are many more
levels of such dynamics-stability relations inside each major level.
I think an evolutionary view is absolutely necessary in order to avoid
getting bugged down in this, and science in general is progressing in this
direction, but very slowly. The elusive part from a Subject-Object
Metaphysical (SOM) point of view is that, when you take an object (system)
and split it up into its parts, trying to understand the system from the
workings of the parts, you miss the very essence of what made it an object
in the first place. For science, overcoming the failures of reductionism by
way of acknowleding and handling that which gets lost in the process of
analysing and reducing, may be a pivotal concequence of the coming
(hopefully) metaphysical revolution.
Did I mess this up completely?
Hugo
-- post message - mailto:skwok@spark.net.hk unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:04 CEST