Hi again all,
After writing about Elvaleaches and Intervaluations by loosely enfolding some of
the aspects in this 'question-and answer'-style, I found that by doing so,
besides it is a lot of fun, it is more easy to make this concept visible.
To take up Rogers objection about 'Elvaleach', it may be indeed to bumpy to read
or to speak, so I propose 'Eleval(e)' instead. It sounds better I hope and
moreover it's more general. So here is another package of:
PAQ - Presumably Asked Questions
Q:So you started with the smallest system to think of, have given it a name and
told me that it also works for 'totality'. We might have a closer look at
'totality' later perhaps, but what about what you call 'subsystems'? It looks as
if I can define an infinite number of systems, isn't it? That doesn't sound very
practical in my opinion!
A:That is right of course, it is not making a lot of sense to investigate the
intervaluation between your curtains and an hydrogen-atom on Alpha-Centauri. But
what I try to look at, is to sort out those intervaluations that make more sense
and those that do less. I have to define a systems-boundary for a certain
investigation as always. But you won't doubt it when I say for example, that
your cat is much more interested in the mice in your house, than your curtain is
interested in the named hydrogen-atom on Alpha-Centauri, no matter how sweet
this is. To estimate how 'strong' those two partners in both examples valuate
each other (they intervaluate) and to compare those two intervaluations with
each other, we are in need of a sort of relative value-index. This relative
index is based on 'dimension'. 'Dimension' expresses a quality, first of all
without asking what that could be (Indeed, I had nothing special in mind, not to
mention a definition, when choosing 'dimension').
Q:If I understand you correctly you said "Ahh, we do need 'dimension'..."
without knowing, if it works. And does it work then? It is parallel to pirsigs
'levels', isn't it?
A:Yes, as far as I can see it bears a strong resemblance with the level
definition, besides 'dimension' represents a smaller step. So dimension one is
where the inorganic level begins; they have the same starting-point.
Unfortunately I can only give examples for 'dimension' but no gap-less line-up.
Q: I see, but am I right to assume, that for dimension one (or is it dimension
zero?) there are not many candidates?
A:Yes indeed! I don't undestand enough to be sure about the 'old' dimensions.
They could also be a compound of more than one dimension....
Q:Stop, stop,...! What is then an 'old' dimension? You meant to say, that the
search for the smallest, the basical element discovers, what can also be found
about the 'Big Bang'?
A: To me it looks a bit like this, but I can't give you strong evidence for
this. This feeling, that this concept seemed to match somehow, encouraged me to
go on.
Q:What you called "...driving through a city and all traffic lights are
green..."in one of your posts, I guess!
A:Well yes, but actually this was only a feeling. Besides we have to consider,
that as long as you keep inside a 'closed intellectual pattern' - for example
math - you have always this feeling, or at least you should have it ;-).
Q:Sure! Back to dimension one. What is it then? Mass?
A:Ah, with mass it is a special thing! Maybe in the end, mass is nothing but an
energy-compound expanding over a volume?! I decided to keep away from this, for
the moment.
No, I then had a look at the 'Big Bang'. What happend? In moment zero there was
only a 'Singularity' - by the way failing the systems-concept - that expanded.
Energy in one point to expand and fill up 'space' and with it we have 'time'.
But 'space-time looks as if it was a 'dimension-compound'. So in that order -
first energy, then space-time, and what follows....
Q:Not so fast young man! Step by step we go!
What should that mean ..."and what follows.."?
A:I'm not sure. Maybe electro-magnetic forces, but there I don't understand. It
is also possible that we have to look for a dimension, that - in intervaluation
with energy and space-time - MAKES electro-magnetic forces and the like. It gets
tricky when you get into it and if this concept/idea fails, it fails down there!
Q:And what about 'capacity'?
A:Well, 'capacity' I call the range between one dimension step and the next. By
the moment
the capacity is exhausted, it is time to find a new dimension. But all this, how
it comes to the creation of a new dimension and the capacity of a dimension, it
is all in the fog still, I must admit.
Q:Ok, it looks as if there is still some work to be done! You mentioned above,
that it was a 'right' or a 'good' feeling. Have you found then other evidence,
for example other authors to deal upon similar concepts or ideas to which your
concept matches, as you've put it?
A: Oh yes indeed! It was even the first thing, I wrote down on Nov 9th. Let me
quote:
[...]
According to the theory [my own], that change - every change - is only possible
while being in an instable position, he [...] must bring the person/ or the
person brings himself into an instable position. What can one say about such an
instable position, what kind of instability is it then?
Are there 'good' or 'bad' instabilities?
[...]
I found later after I purchased Fritjof Capras, 'turning point' in between the
first 20 pages or so, the remark that in Chinese 'wei-ji' that is used similar
as our 'crisis' is composed of the two syllables that mean 'danger' and
'chance', which really amazed me.
Q:Hmm, sounds strange somehow. I do not yet buy this from you, you know! And
take care of 'quality' when using it. Here in Lila-town we have a loose
'quality-hand', just to remind you!
A:No worries, no worries - I'll take care!
Thanks for taking the time, I hope you enjoyed it!
I wish you well,
so long,
JoVo
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:50 BST