LS Re: The four levels


Magnus Berg (MagnusB@DataVis.se)
Sat, 18 Oct 1997 14:27:34 +0100


>From: Gene Kofman[SMTP:its@icanect.net]

>I think we already did, when LS writes about interdependency and mutual
>mediation of levels. It seems to me that level boundaries are not crisp,
>they overlap. For example, it's very difficult to pinpoint were inorganic
>stops and bio begins.

For me, the dependencies and discreteness between the levels are
absolute and, with no religious content, sacred. Every time I've seen
something that seemed to contradict this, I have been able to
resolve it without touching this absoluteness.

The static levels are not just an arbitrary classification of all
things.
It's not like you can choose to put a thing in one level or the other.
the borders between the levels are not lines as the lines on a map.

Maybe Bo's dimension analogy is a good start to point this out.
You don't have to use the "usual" space-time dimensions though,
as long as each dimensions are perpendicular to all others. I.e.
a value expressed in one dimension cannot be expressed using
any or all the others. It must be expressed using the right one.

This way, we have the first dimension, the inorganic. A world
of only inorganic things are one-dimensional in this respect.

Organic patterns cannot be placed in the inorganic dimension.
It does not add anything to the inorganic dimension, it has a
dimension of its own and stretches out in it. But, all organic
patterns still use the inorganic patterns and become two-
dimensional, MoQ-wise. You can always value any organic
pattern inorganically, measure the length, weight etc. What
is measured here is the inorganic dimension. The only way
to value (measure) the organic dimension is, as Diana showed
with her yummy chocholate, is to sense it.

This continues for two levels more.

I think this analogy shows the discreteness between the
levels very well. However, it might give the impression that
an arbitrary level can start to evolve without the ones below,
which is not the case. Maybe we could extend the analogy
to show the dependency also, anyone?

Or do anyone think that the dependencies and discreteness
are not absolute?

        Magnus
>

--
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 - 16:42:05 CEST