Hi Roger,hi all
Thanks for you reply! It will take me some time though, to think it over, but as
far as I can see it looks indeed very similar. The main reason is, that many of
what I have in mind is still quite vague, although I have written down as much I
could grasp. It is a loose, thin web of thoughts until now and to compare (and
intergrate) other concepts to it is a difficult task. I mean, I did not intended
to plan such a concept, it 'climbed' somehow out of my sub-consciousness and I
found it worth to think about it, but I could not plan it. So, I want to avoid
to mix two concepts/ideas that don't belong together, you know what I mean?
RISKYBIZ9@aol.com wrote:
>
> RISKY ROG TO JOVO (AND EVERYONE INTERESTED) ON INTERVALUEING SYSTEMS
>
> Hi JoVo!
>
> The reason I am so intrigued by your essay is that I have been exploring
> similar ideas and have come to similar conclusions. My working term for the
> concept has been "Positive Sum Quality." It uses concepts from physics
> (self amplifying feedback) and game theory (win/win interactions) to better
> explain where pattern and order come from within each level, and how each
> level evolves to the next. Basically, I have found that the win/win
> interactions of game theory (as originated by Von Neuman) and the physics
> concept of a feedback loop are really two ways of stating the same idea.
Well indeed, game theory I also found while comparing other 'systems'-definition
after I described mine. In a book about micro-economics, I found interesting
ideas concerning the behaviour of human beings in those 'games'. The author
referred also to Norbert Elias, a sociologist, who created the term
'interdependecies' (I guess he did). I have read one of his books before and I
believe,
that's where I got this from. During my consideration, I found that
intervaluation is more appropriate to what we are talking about here.
Win/win interactions, self amplifying feedback are no doubt also very immportant
parts to what I have in mind. Technical feedback effects has been an
important (must) subject of my studies.
> And that idea, which again I am calling POSITIVE SUM QUALITY, overlaps
> greatly with what you have been writing on elvaleaches, systems and positive
> value equations. Of course it also overlaps completely with the MOQ.
>
> Before going on, let me again warn you off of using "elvaleaches" as a term.
> It translates into English into some type of parasite that sucks the blood
> out of an elf. This is completely at odds with your intended definition.
> "Intervalueing" works very well, as does "co-valueing", but it's your
> term......
I have really no exceptional favour in EXACTLY those words I suggested, only I
wanted to avoid to carry a huge ballast of meanings with me while talking about
this, because that makes it difficult to discuss frankly.
Agree: intervalueing is better than intervaluation (verbal form should be
preferred)
I have no tv-set and I do not know of those evil elvaleaches, but of course
if this something ugly or evil it shouldn't be used.
BTW do think, there is no reason to create a new word or concept, i.e. it is
superfluous to have one new?
I'm willing to consider a basical objection if there is one I may not see, for
not being a native speaker.
In short agin my points:
PRO
--- 1) existing words (system, functioning,...) are stressing a dichotomic point of view 'System':= latin- putting together, assemble (who puts what? man is acting on something. has man build up solar-systems????)2)existing words are so overloaded with presumably 10-50 various (slightly differing, but they do) that everybody talking about this has something different in mind, depending on his home country, native language, his political opinion, his education (me for example mechnical-engineering)...
3)(consequence of the above) existing words occupy lots of energy first of all, while defining and talking about, what everybody participating has in mind and second may distract people from what I really have in mind
4)in a new word, we would have the chance to give a MoQ spin, f.e. to have at least as one component the MoQ-concept 'value' in it
5)in a new word we could stess, that in our opinion it this value-bond, that makes the thing primarily. The thing or being is what it is, for it's components AND a value-relation, out of which a new thing arises.
6)to reduce problems in distinguishing, concerning 'intellectual patterns of value' and 'pattern of value', which produces confusion now and then
7)(you want more? :-)) )
CONTRA -------
(What contras then? I haven't seen any!!)
1)you have to get used to it
2)you have to reread the description of the concept sometimes
3)you have to tell people now and then what that should mean
4)people could laugh at you for not being 'serious'(?)
(fill in as much as you like here) :-))
Some new proposals: 'value-being' or perhaps 'being of value'(see: pattern of value) value-bond, net-of-value (i.e a bigger one), value-web, value-connect (I don't like this!), value-system (..this neither ;-)), ...? Maybe names of people, who has done a great service to the MoQ (no joking!)like it is tradition in most sciences. (other suggestions?) Personally I'd prefer one of first three or four. I really don't consider this as an act of mere aesthetics.
> Below are some sketchy outlines of some of my work..... > > QUESTION SET UP/BACKGROUND: > According to physic's second law of thermodynamics, in a closed system, such > as our universe, disorder will inevitably triumph over order and structure. > Entropy will be maximized. The reason for this is that the second law is a > statistical law. There are so many more possible states of disorder than > order, that any given closed system is virtually guaranteed to be disordered. > The second law predicts that in the absence of any forces creating order and > structure, the universe should be a disperse, featureless, disordered cloud > of inert gas.The obvious problem with the entropic model is that it does not > correlate at all to the universe of galaxies, stars, and planets that we > actually observe. Our universe is one of variety, complexity and structure > that goes well beyond the subatomic realm. Any metaphysical or scientific > theory needs to be able to explain this.
I spend a lot of time on the consideration of the beginning and the end of universe, what I call 'totality' (but have really no preference) and applied 'entropy' on my concept and found that it is making a lot of sense (see: pile of thoughts, non-system 9.11.). There is a scientific explaination about this (your last sentence). Got me some systemic books, of which one is about human beings 'time-concept' (by P.Coveney; R.Highfield; The arrow of time; '90, London). Discussing the early state of the universe, in one chapter they talk about 'deterministic chaos'. It means a local increase of mass and energy that again leads to even less likely events (roughly). Maybe Jonathan, perhaps can give us advice here? This seems to be supported at least by your concept as far as I understood. I haven't tried mine until now. > > I believe that the MOQ explains this through the evolution of value or > Quality. However, I find the MOQ is sketchy in places on how the patterns of > each of the levels evolve. More importantly, Pirsig only briefly addresses > the details on HOW each level goes about evolving into a higher level. I > believe Positive Sum Quality (my term) and whatever term you want to use for > your concepts does address this issue. Pirsig has encouraged the Lila Squad > to flesh out the vast portions (98% per the author) of the MOQ that are not > yet known. Below is some brief outlines of my first attempt at the task, > along with some correlations that seem to exist between your work and mine. > That seems to be right in my opinion!
> QUESTION 1) INORGANIC: WHY IS THE UNIVERSE ORDERED RATHER THAN DISORDERED? > > BROAD ANSWER --Quality/value > > SPECIFIC ANSWER -- There are four "forces" and myriads of "particles" within > quantum theory; however, quantum reality -- like the MOQ -- is ultimately > constructed of verbs and values rather than nouns or things. Reality is > dynamic interaction, and the amazing breakthrough of modern physics is that > it is not things that interact as much as it is interactions which define > things. In the words of Werner Heisenberg, one of the founders of the theory, > "The world thus appears as a complicated tissue of events in which > connections of different kinds alternate or combine and thereby determine the > texture of the whole." This is reminiscent of Pirsig's quote: by "A thing > that has no value does not exist. The thing has not created the value. The > value has created the thing." > > The fundamental building blocks of reality are not things, they are events -- > Quality events. These events can be described as interactions, and what we > think of as things --such as particles or forces -- are essentially stable > patterns of interaction. In your terms, they seem to be "elvaleaches" or > "intervaluations." would you agree JoVo?
I very much agree on this and wish to thank you for stressing the fact, that this intervaluing is even more important than those particles a new thing consist of (this one is also nice: 'new-thing'(?) ) These elements had priority over 'intervaluing' in my original 'elvaleach'-concept. I think also that 'intervaluing' is needed additionally to the alternative systems-concept, because I consider the universe and everything in there as a process that shows in times and places of stagnation and 'local-stability' the constitution of relative stable 'areas' with specific characteristics. These I call a system. Strictly speaking there is nothing but systems, right, but as always we have to define system-boundaries, for instance relating two 'systems' to each other to find via value-index how much they 'care' for EACH other (in both directions, which makes a mathematical solution extremely difficult, I know, but that is secondary for now). > > But, I still haven't addressed the question. The reason that the universe is > ordered is that one particularly weak force has a special quality or > characteristic. This force, which we call gravity, is universally > attractive, infinite in range and its strength is inversely proportionate to > distance. In other words, every "particle" in the universe attracts every
As said in this book (s.a.), gravity, concerning the general theory of relativity (spelling?) is an effect of distorted space-time, thus there is in the whole universe indeed gravity but it is dependent on how much mass is agglomerated. So to say, it is an inherent characteristic of local areas, however no place existing with zero gravitation.
> other particle, and the closer they get the stronger the attraction. This > establishes a positive, self amplifying feedback > loop, or in your words, an intervalueing system. Gravity is the poster child > for what I call a Positive Sum Quality process. Although infinitessimally > small compared to the most powerful force of nature, electromagnetism, > gravity is able to allow pattern and structure to overcome the entropy > inherent in the larger force. > > How? Electromagnetism, though 10 to the 43rd power stronger than gravity, > has two values -- positive and negative. as such, it cancels itself out. > Gravity is universally attractive and due to its tendency to attract and its > ability to gain strength with closeness, it is self amplifying. The > universe, though overwhelmingly entropic, is ordered and structured and > complex via the positive sum intervaluation of weak little gravity. > > Gravitational "intervaluation" SYSTEMS include stars, planets, solar systems, > black holes, galaxies, galactic clusters, and even the entire universe. > Would you agree, JoVo?
I agree very much on this, besides I cannot see it for my concept how all this works (intervaluates ;-) ) Very attractive I find your idea of the 'Positive Sum Quality process', because it somehow deals upon the question. "to wich partners or systems could be this or that beneficial". I don't understand to much of those physics, especially the four big forces (besides gravity perhaps); there is a lot of work to be done. > > [Sorry in advance for using such S/O terminology. Unfortunately, for clarity > our language almost requires it. For the record though, the stream or > 'tissue' of Quality events is DQ, and gravity is just one of many simplified, > degenerative abstractions of DQ] >
Well, we do have no other and here they work quite fine, do they? I don't bother.
> Q2) BIOLOGICAL: WHY DOES LIFE EVOLVE FROM NON-LIFE? > > BROAD ANSWER -- Quality/value > > SPECIFIC ANSWER -- A living system is formed out of advanced chemical > feedback loops, where the elements make each other (simple chemical feedback > loops are actually fairly commonplace). The function of each component of a > living system such as a cell is to participate in the production or > transformation of other components in the network. In this way the entire > network makes itself. It is therefore a win/win, Positive Sum relationship > for the chemicals involved and for the larger pattern. The system is self > creating and self maintaining. > > In your words, JoVo, would such living systems be "intervalueing?" Seems > like it to me. > > In the words of Chilean neuroscientist/biologist/cyberneticist Humberto > Maturana " Living systems...[are] organized in a closed causal circular > process that allows for evolutionary change in the way circularity is > maintained, but not in the loss of the circularity itself." > > In a predominantly entropic world, living systems are preserved and evolve in > complexity and Dynamic versatility as the world around them decays into the > minimal organization provided by local gravity. Of course, living systems > must continually extract order from their surroundings by allowing energy and > material to pass through their system. One of the best sources for order is > ....SURPRISE!!!! other living systems. As such, some living systems > dynamically evolved the ability to consume others, and others developed the > ability to defend against being consumed. An anti-entropic arms race ensued, > where living systems dynamically gained versatile new forms of consumption > and defense...cellular walls, propulsion, cellular wall penetration > mechanisms.......you get the point. > > One particularly successful strategy for a living cell was to combine forces > with other cells into an "intervalueing" relationship. A multi-cellular life > system continues the intervalueing process up to the next level. Cells > combine together and cooperate into another win/win situation. Additional > complexity, division of > resources and specialization can all come out of this relationship. In > addition, one hi-Quality strategy to defend against these cooperative > coalitions of cells is to also form a competing coalition of cells > (obviously, evolutionary strategies are statistical in nature, not > conscious). Another evolutionary arms race of complexity occurs, this time > toward higher Quality forms of cooperation and versatility. DQ in action > again! This time leading to skin, organs, legs, wings, eyes, brains, etc, > etc. > > JoVo, is this another example that meets your intervalueing system > requirements?
As said above I intend to work through this thoroughly. For most examples beyond the inorganic level I applied my concept on, it worked quite fine, but the 'devil is in the detail' as one say in Germany ;-) (I guess you understand). I thought, just like you, much about feedback effects, positive as also negative ones; where there is for me: Positive: +=+ and -=-; negative: +=- and -=+ .
> Note that the driver toward chemical and cellular intervaluation is entropy > and death. The negative face of quality is what leads to those in > self-supporting loops to survive and flourish as others dissappear. Again, > this is fully in agreement with Pirsig's writings, though again my > terminology in many places is conventional rather than MOQish.. > > Q3) SOCIAL: WHY DOES SOCIAL COOPERATION, ORDER AND COMPLEXITY EVOLVE FROM > SELFISH INDIVIDUAL BIOLOGICAL QUALITY? > > BROAD ANSWER -- Quality/value > > SPECIFIC ANSWER -- I have run out of time. Let me know your thoughts and > responses on the above JoVo (and everybody else) and if anyone is interested, > I will continue. > > Risky Rog
Unfortunately I got a mail from my institute today (job at the Uni), that says: WORK!; I soon will post a few examples to show what already works. Tell me your favourite candidate, Roger and everybody who feels the urge, if one of it suits you.
Thanks for reading folks,
wish you well,
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 - 16:00:51 BST