LS (No subject)


Stephen Wilson (sawilson@worldnet.att.net)
Tue, 16 Dec 1997 22:41:23 +0100


Bodvar, Diana & Ken - thanks for extending me a welcome.

Ken -
Referencing your issue about the 92 elements - paraphrasing from Joseph
Brownoski’s “The Ascent of Man”: as proposed by Dalton as early as 1805,
each element had a distinguishing characteristic, that being of a different
atomic weight from the others. Mendeleev laid out the known elements in a
row and column format (which eventually became the periodic table). To him,
it was like solving a puzzle with only some of the pieces, from which he
deduced (or induced) many of the missing elements.
However, from my (Steve’s) perspective, elements are not elements because
they can be broken down further - into protons, neutrons, electrons - and
this can go further with quarks, and I suppose we’ll find what composes
quarks sooner or later (perhaps somebody already has).
To me, “things” can be broken down, but not qualities. The only “elements”
are qualities, as they cannot be described by their parts, because there
are no parts. They can only be described by similar (but different)
qualities (as a thesaurus does).
Brownokski elaborates further - “people who ask how ‘we’ got here picture
it thus: think of all the atoms that make up your body at this moment. How
madly improbable that they should come together at this place and instant.
“Yes, it would be improbable, virtually impossible.” says Bronowski, “but
it doesn’t work that way - nature works by steps; atoms form molecules,
molecules form bases, bases direct formation of amino acids - the stable
units that compose one level or stratum are raw material for random
encounters which produce higher configurations, some of which will change
to become stable. I (Bronowski) call this ‘Stratified Stability.’”
Sound familiar?
I see the same difficulty with the Big Bang theory - something had to be
there at the “start,” and I believe it was Quality. It is Quality, first as
primitive (inorganic?) values, that has evolved over time to produce more
sophisticated “things.” And even though I’ve stated it, I (Steve) am still
trying to comprehend it.

Diana -
I have printed out some of the discussions regarding Quality put forth by
the LS. For just 4 days worth of interactions, I have printed out over 50
sheets of paper. But by reading these discussions, it helps me to
understand MOQ better, for sometimes the light bulb will click on when I
least expect it.
I do like Magnus Berg’s contribution regarding the principles of MOQ that
he wrote on Dec 9th - I felt his statements captured the essence very well,
and they were short and concise.

Regards to All,
Steve

--
post message - mailto:lilasqd@hkg.com
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 - 16:42:26 CEST