Joćo, All,
This probably is not proper form, but I'm just going to jump here...
>Art explores the conceptually unknown creating patterns that make the
>conceptually unknown intelligible (?)
I agree it explores the concepturally unknown, but don't agree that it
neccessarily makes it intellegible. I think it principle effect is a direct
impact (hopefully favorable) on out quality recognition mechanisms in our
brains.
>Science covers measurable (intelligible) patterns that arise from the
>conceptually unknown trying to incorporate them in the conceptually known
>through the creation of new static patterns (?) concepts (?)
Have to disagree here. Both Art and Science explore the conceptually
unknown. Science and Art are alot more a like than they are different.
The basis of science, art, and really all creativitiy are stories and
pictures (patterns) made up in our head. These stories and pictures are
usually a (Quality)response to our environment. The ones that can be tested
and proved or disproved are the basis of predictive models, practical
actions, intellect science and technology. If they are good enough they will
become part of our behavior building blocks. If we are a species which can
communicate to our children then we can pass this information down to them
and they will benefit as well.
The stories and pictures that make up art and literature need not be
tested or proved buy comparison to the outside world, but only judged by the
effect they have on the Quality Recognition Mechanisms (QRM) of their
audience.
So, Some pictures and stories are judged based on how well they correspond
to observed phenomenon, while others are judged by their more direct effect
on the quality recognition mechanism of their audience.
>I think science should contact with the conceptually unknown
I think we should be connecting with the Universe as a whole. The
"conceptually unkown" is but a subset of this Universe. The Universe as a
whole, as experienced, undivided, all encompassing, nothing exist outside
it, nothing!
>conceptually unknown ----- (ART) ------ conceptually known ----- (SCIENCE)
>----- conceptually coherent
I don't get this at all. Sorry.
>Do you think that we can include science and art in the diagram?
Science and Art are the results of activities in our brains whose purpose
it to help us understand and cope with the Universe we are part of. They are
properly a subset of internal model building activities. Internal model
building activities are used by all biological agents. In fact you might say
they are biology's reason for being.
>assumptions: pattern of value = concept
> static quality = conceptually known
> dynamic quality = conceptually unknown
> ... what do you think?
1st 2 ok, but how about:
Dynamic Quality = impact of an experience on the Quality Recognition
Mechanism (QRM) of our brains.
>How can we measure the quality (static) of an organization of value
>patterns?
Short answer: ...by how well it works. ...by how well it allows you to
survive and prosper.
>1. Through the harmony between them.
>COESION - avoiding the contradictions - these are lower inside each of the
4
>layers than betweeen them, and are still lower inside a slice of the layer
>("the knifes"!) (ex: a certain social structure (as church, school, family)
>has less contradictions than the ones between different social structures.
Truth is the measure of self consistancy between the parts of our internal
model of the universe. Our models of the universe are always in need of
improvement and always have some inconsistancies in them. Thats why there
will always be intellectual and scientific work to be done. Note: Truth
has nothing to say about the really universe, only about our models of the
universe. Many people still beleive that Truth is more important than it
really is. The ability to recognize the Quality or its lack in a model will
redefine Truth. This the really important understanding.
>2. Through the harmony with dynamic quality.
>ADAPTABILITY
>If these patterns=concepts are in harmony with the dynamic quality, i.e.,
>the new data does not contradict the concepts.
>If these patterns can be easily adapted to new, contradictory data.
Through good correlation with experience, and the ability to predict future
experiences.
Question: Why does this group feel it must invent new meaning for words
when alot of the existing word useage already works fine for MOQ. Granted
we have to redefine or tweak some, but couldn't we try to minimize this?
>3. Through the harmony with previous static patterns.
>STABILITY
>If the change in static patterns is frequent and drastic, what trust can we
>have on the new patterns of value?
Agree, but be warned that advancements in knowlege will always cause some
reshuffling of our internal models. Usually minor restructuring in some
corner of the model, but every so often a Newton, a Darwin (or maybe a
Pirsiq) comes along and causes a bigger change. The only "trust" you
should place in any model is how well does it work an what did it do to the
quality of your model. The frequency and extent of change of your models is
not good or bad. It may just mean you are learning alot very fast.
>Is any of this "of quality"?
you bet!
John
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:30 BST