Dear Magnus,
> From: Magnus Berg <mcmagnus@subdimension.com>
> To be more precise, the static patterns that are the glue between quality
> events are the quantum patterns that we perceive as the passing of time.
Precise? Some joke, surely?
Descartes sought a certain standard of clarity and distinctness as the
guaruntee of truthfulness. I find myself somewhat opaque and fuzzy about
what you have to offer here. Some static patterns come "between" quality
events? What does this mean? What is the relevance and meaning of
"quantum" here? What leads you to think that the passing of time is
something we "perceive"? What does "perceive" mean here?
> BTW, Elephant asked for my thoughts about the relationship between
> DQ and SQ. They go something like this.
>
> Reality is Quality which is an event, the quality event. This quality
> event consists of two parts, the static which is the source of the
> subject and the object, and the dynamic which is the unpredictability
> of each quality event. It's the dynamic part that is the source of all
> real change, the part that makes even the most predictable event to
> sometimes turn out a little differently.
This is rather what I feared you might say. I am entirely at a loss to
understand how dynamic quality, which is a continuum, can form part of an
event. You appear not to understand the difference between these two
concepts, 'continuum', and 'event'.
To begin with, in order for something to be part of an event it would have
to be a property of that event (by the meaning of these words). But dynamic
quality is *not* a property (I don't think any serious readers of RMP can be
in any doubt over this and I hardly need to explain again why that is so.
OK I will. Dynamic Quality comes before subjects and objects because it
comes before *all* grammatical distinctions: it is what there is to describe
(reality), rather than some part of the description).
Second, supposing (per impossible) that DQ *could* be a property of an
event, it would then be necessary for there to be lots of distinguishable
DQ's, as many as there are distinguishable events. This is because you say
that it is the "dynamic part" that is the source all the change of which an
event is part. If all events were related to their successors and
predecessors in exactly the same way, ie with exactly the same differences,
it would be plausible to claim that the DQ which is the change-acting part
of the event is the same in every case. But it is obvious that no such
event could be so related and still be called an 'event'. Therefore, if DQ
were to be the change acting part of an event it would have to be
fragmented: there would have to be lots of different DQ's. But this is
against the definition of Dynamic Quality, viz as an aesthetic continuum.
If it were Fragmented, or for that matter fragmentable, it would not be a
continuum. QED.
DQ is *not* a part of the definition, either of a quality event nor of a
Subject-Object pairing (since you persist in distinguishing the two). You
are confusing yourself by thinking of 'dynamic' on the debased usage of that
word in commerce and advertising. A washing powder, which has a 'dynamic'
ingredient, is not 'dynamic' in the same sense that dynamic quality is
dynamic. The relevant ingredient in washing powder is perfectly static in
it's form as an ingredient: it is it's *effects* and it's *reactions* that
are called "dynamic". In contrast the Dynamism of DQ does not lie in some
transformation from an inactive to an active state: DQ is *never* static, DQ
*never* has a state - that's why it is called "dynamic".
And this is my concluding point. Since you have allowed to DQ the
characteristics of being a property, of being fragmentable, of being static
in the definition of an event or subject-object pairing, you have in fact
allowed to DQ *all* the characteristics of SQ. I am thus unclear as to
what, in your view, distinguishes the DQ from SQ. I began by asking you for
an account of the common element between DQ and SQ, such that both could be
called "quality", and you have indeed out done yourself in the clarity of
your reply. You apparently maintain, in practice, that what they have in
common is that, for all intents and purposes, they are the same thing.
I offered you another account of the relationship between DQ and SQ,
according to which the last is to the first as a diary to a life. Having
heard your competing account, I have decided, for the moment, to stick with
my own.
Elephant
P.S.:
>> MAGNUS
>>> I think that reality is best described by quality events, and that we
>>> deduce the static patterns from those quality events.
Well, if you think this, I mean about the deduction and the implication that
the quality events and the static patterns are distinct, your thought will
presumably be based on some actual experience. Would you like to give us an
example?
And Jonathan was right to say, about you, that
>> By dividing quality into discreet "events", you are already in the realm of
>> patterns.
Magnus replied:
> Not quite, DQ always has influence over each event, so the patterns aren't
> all static. They are somewhat unpatterned.
Well, if you can say that patterns are not patterned, and maintain a smile,
it really is politics you should be engaged in, not philosophy.
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:32 BST