Mary Wrote:
> Is DQ, then, another word for the unpredictable?
I sure hope not. I think we are again (or at least I am) getting confused
with the difference between dynamic and Dynamic Quality. So let's use the
radio example for a minute. Sure it could fall off of a table and be
dynamic, it could even suddenly explode from a fire cracker and be *really*
dynamic. Somehow I think this is missing the point of Dynamic Quality.
Radios as we know them now are relatively static... so what made them
Dynamic?
Certainly when the idea was come up with and the first radio was produced
this process was very Dynamic. When radios were introduced into society
this was very dynamic. Think of the change that the *idea* produced. We
have physical, social and intellectual uses for the radio it has been
ingrained into society.
In the same way 8 tracks, tape decks and CD players had there time in the
Dynamic lime-light. I'm just not sure a 'plain old' radio now-a-days has
much Dynamic Quality. There is no real risk involved in using it... they
are all very standard.
I would say that there is a certain element of unpredictability in Dynamic
Quality though, you don't know if you're on the right track until after you
look back at what you have done. That is probably the reason why cutting
edge technology just disappears after a while, it may be very dynamic and it
may have a lot of quality but it doesn't promote any real change.
> If so, how do we know that we are seeing DQ instead of a pattern we have
yet to recognize?
The one biggest thing that I got from Zen and Lila was that everything has
the potential to be both DQ and SQ, it all depends on your personal
perspective. To me, I might make widgets so they are no big deal and
widgets are Static Quality. If I showed you a widget though you might think
it is the coolest thing and it would be Dynamic Quality. So the same widget
can be SQ for one person and DQ for another. Is one person any more right
or wrong?
> Does our ability to predict an event mean that that event is no longer
Dynamic?
Not really.
1) Chaos theory tells us that even if we can predict an event perfectly
there are subsequent (dynamic) events that we will not be able to predict.
2) You can know either a particle's exact direction or a particle's exact
velocity but not both.
I would believe you if you told me you could predict an event x which had
one of the properties (physical, biological, social, intellectual), heck I
might even give you the ability to select any three and tell me what would
happen perfectly. I wouldn't believe that you could tell me on every level
what happens though. There are side effects that cannot be predicted or
accurately measured and that can still be dynamic then.
> As we progress in our studies of science, do the number of things that are
Dynamic start to shrink?
The more I learn the less I know.
Okay, that is probably a poor answer but it really is true. I also don't
see why just because we have an understanding of something it is less
Dynamic.
> How do we know that something is Dynamic?
Your own personal judgement... don't take somebody else's word on it. Know
it for yourself.
hmmm,
Mary
MOQ Online - http://www.moq.org
MOQ Online - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Jan 17 2002 - 13:08:43 GMT