Dan, Pete, Jonathan and everyone,
Jonathan, I just found out how little I depend on my memory. My computer
won't run my internet browsers right now, and I can't get to your essay to
see exactly how you look at randomness. You might be interested in this,
though.
Dan said:
> >Glove:
> >
> >I have been pondering your question and I am unsure that any social
> >evolution, as we know it, would take place in a biologically "stable"
> >population. It too would have to be "programmed", would it not? (is that
> >what you mean by "pyscho-social evolution"?) What drives social evolution?
> >Its the biological diversity. If that is eliminated by genetically altering
> >Dynamic Quality "into", in essence locking it out of, the biological level,
> >there will be nothing to drive the social or intellect levels either. That
> >culture would end up in a Brave New World type scenario, don't you think?
> >
Hi, Dan! A few moments ago, I would have said it differently--that it's
biological
stability that allows social patterns(DQ to biology) to form. But you are
right. That stability can't just be the stability of biology, because
that's going off on its own static tangent.
Within biological diversity, new meta-biological balance points are
formed, and the combinations, if they are valued and repeated, become new
patterns. And here we get the joining, group aspect of the social level.
It seems to me that these particular balance points within certain
combinations of biological patterns are points in which randomness can
occur.
Randomness could have occurred before the combining, but as a biological
entity, the
structure wouldn't have allowed it. The entity would have become
less valuable or died. It wouldn't have been repeated or maintained.
In the new combined pattern, a type of randomness that would not have
succeeded could possibly occur. Then the valuing process happens, and
either because within the combination there is value for this new
randomness, or because the need was already there and in the combination
is found the capability to sustain it, it's repeated.
So, essentially, randomness is the spark of Dynamic Quality. The
mechanism of DQ.
And when this particular randomness happens, and then becomes the
essential new component of a big combined system, you have the instance of
irreversibilty. "Time's arrow" has come into play. The valued element
formed by
randomness is the locking mechanism, the static latch that holds the new
meta-system together.
The prevailing view in science is that randomness that creeps in is the
mechanism of entropy. (Entropy is that factor that is winding down the
universe toward ultimate heat death, when nothing will be able to interact
with anything else, because all the interactions will have happened.)
However, if you look at entropy from MoQ, "entropy" is Dynamic Quality
viewed from any static outlook.
It seems to me that entropy is not the end of the universe, but the fuel
for its continued growth. And as such, it is enexhaustible!
Cheers,
Maggie
>
MOQ Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mailing List Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
Unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with
UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in the body of the email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:50 BST