3WD:
I'm rereading "Seven Life Lessons of Chaos" by Briggs and Peat and one
of the things that find hard to reconcile between chaos theory and
Pirsig's work is the whole concept of "feedback". Its all well and good
to suggest that it is moral that a higher level dominant, rule, is
morally superior to a lower one but it is not so easy to justify a tiny
shift in value in a lower level upsetting the balance of a higher one.
ROG:
I read this book, but I'm not sure if I get your question. In chaos theory,
small changes in lower levels can amplify to make dramatic changes in
emergent levels. On the other hand, the patterns of variance also often have
a tendency toward attractors. The attractors can be viewed as defining the
bounadaries of the emergent patterns. For example, a butterfly flutter may
lead to nothing or to a hurricane 2000 miles away, but there are still
recognizable patterns of weather and of storms.
On the other hand, sometimes an unusual change at an underlying level can
cause the emergent attractors to jump to an entirely new set of attractors.
Is this what you are referencing?
Why do you say it is tough to justify? Do you mean it is not easy to align
chaos theory with MOQ theory?
Rog
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
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 - 16:01:52 BST