clark (clark@netsites.net)
Mon, 19 Jan 1998 09:35:51 +0100
----------
> From: Hugo Fjelsted Alroe <alroe@vip.cybercity.dk>
> To: Multiple recipients of <lilasqd@mail.hkg.com>
> Subject: LS Re: Principles - Update
> Date: Sunday, January 18, 1998 9:43 PM
>
> Platt, Doug and LS
>
> Doug, on my comment on principle # 9, you said:
>
> >Hugo,
> >
> >The above references to Quality as bounded, for me, are problematic. I
> >do not see the accumulation of SQ as bounding Quality.
> >
> >In comparison, I see one of SQ's goals that of approaching
> >asymptotically infinite intellect. However, I do not see this progress
> >as bounding Quality in any way. SQ is unlimited on the upside, yet it
> >in no way bounds Quality. IMhO.
> >
> >Doug Renselle.
>
> I am thinking in terms of possible and actual being, as an old
> philosophical counterpart of the dynamic and static quality of Pirsig. I
> wrote a couple of mails to the list on 29.oct.97 where I tried to explain
> my view on this. Let me have another try.
> First, I equate dynamic quality with the possible and not yet actualized,
> and static quality with the actualized. I will give a simple dice example
> first.
> I have a homogeneous block of wood, and I want to make a die from it. A
> range of dice are possible, in fact an infinite (well, - huge ;-) range
of
> dice; from the spherical and somewhat dull die to the cubic, and beyond.
> This block of wood is an image of our primeval uniform potency - the
> dynamic quality as source of everything. Now some die gets actualized
(via
> my modest creation, but this does not imply that a creator is always
> necessary), lets say one with seven unequal sides, you know - a kind of
> postmodern die. This actual die, this static pattern of values, now makes
> up the ground for an interesting game of dice, which was not possible
> before the die came about. This is an image of the dynamic quality
founded
> on, and bounded by, static quality.
> In fact this is the seed to a very general theory of evolution (and -
since
> everything comes around through evolution - a theory of everything :-)
and
> by taking this as pivotal in a MoQ-like metaphysics, I may diverge from
> Pirsig - I don't know, I just know it is pivotal in my own understanding.
>
> Doug, on my comments to principle # 11, you said:
> >Hugo,
> >
> >One of the great strokes of genius from Kurt Goedel in the 1920s and
> >1930s was his use of self-reference (recursion) to achieve his
> >"Incompleteness Theorems."
> >
> >I like Platt's "Proof" principle for exactly this reason.
> >
> >Platt shows perspective at an extraordinary, high, Quality level in this
> >statement. It is simple, elegant, and after Platt opened our eyes with
> >it, it as do all great breakthroughs, became intuitive.
>
> And Platt gave a long and thorough reply to me (thanks Platt) which I
have
> not yet fully understood, but which made me see, that it is not the
> principle itself: "It is impossible to refute that Quality is reality
> without asserting a value", which I dislike, but the fact that the
> principle is called "Proof". A proof is essentially a referral of a
> proposition to a set of axioms (a set of obvious or just presumed
> statements) in a consistent (logical) system, establishing the
proposition
> as a deduction from the axioms (as far as I understand). There is no
proof
> for the system itself, no proof for the axioms and no proof for the
logic,
> and we might agree that making a proof is a special form of valuation.
The
> MoQ or something like it may establish itself as a better way of
> understanding ourself and our world, but saying that it can be proven to
be
> better is the same as saying that it is only part of some larger system,
-
> and then we need a proof for that system. Or?
>
>
> Regards
>
> Hugo
>
>
> --
> post message - mailto:lilasqd@hkg.com
> unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com
> homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
>
>
Hugo,
If you are not familiar with it, a book by James Gleick, 'Chaos
(Deterministic Disorder)', will make your point for your nicely.
In the words of Gleick, "Chaos shows how a purposeless flow of energy can
wash life and consciousness into the world."
If I understand your position correctly you are saying that Dynamic
Quality is bounded by the Static Patterns of Value because Dynamic Quality
is dependent on those SPOVs for its preconditioning and thus is not
entirely a free agent. I think I also agree with Doug that there is no
upper limit on either static quality (SPOVs) or Dynamic Quality.
I looked at one of your early (to me) posts to Martin I believe, and I
agree with you that given the starting point of the universe our presence
here is almost, or is, a foregone conclusion.
Ken Clark
-- post message - mailto:lilasqd@hkg.com unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:38 CEST