Magnus Berg (qmgb@bull.se)
Thu, 29 Jan 1998 18:03:51 +0100
Hi Platt
Platt Holden wrote:
>
> Well, I guess it's my turn to be missing something. If all concepts are
> static patterns, and if "nothing" is a concept, then "nothing" is a static
> pattern. If the "nothing" static pattern disintegrates into a "no thing"
> static pattern, what's the difference? The logic escapes me. Anyway,
> aren't the so-called particles that make up electrons and such "no things,"
> just necessary figments of mathematical equations?
Of course "nothing" is a concept. It's quite useless to invent words that
doesn't denote anything. The nothing, atom and other words I used were
used because they were the only words I could come up with to try to
describe my view of chaos.
> Chaos means to me, "I have no idea,." a situation I sometimes value for it
> spurs me to learn more, i.e. lay some static patterns onto the mysteries of
> life. Quantum physics, for example, was pretty much chaos for me until Doug
> and others took the time to patiently explain its fundamental patterns.
This kind of chaos is a pure source of inspiration, I agree. It is Doug's
latest .sig "Don't throw away those Mu answers. . .They're the ones you
GROW on!". But it's not freedom from *all* static patterns. You're still
around, Doug is there, the laws of nature are as static as ever and so on.
> When scientists talk about chaos, it seems to me they're talking about
> phenomena they can't explain, a patternless pattern. And isn't that what
> Pirsig is talking about, too? Only Pirsig says scientists are looking in
> all the wrong places for an explanation, or rather, they really don't have
> to look because, to paraphrase Pogo,. "They are it" -- Quality.
Chaos as in "chaos theory" is also, I agree, a state that we don't
understand, so we call it chaos until we do understand it. But it's still
not freedom from *all* static patterns. The laws of nature are quite
intact. In fact, the scientists uses the laws of nature in their efforts
to understand the state.
So, we have at least three different kinds of chaos. Let's map them
to the levels and se what we get.
Freedom from intellectual patterns:
This would be your kind of chaos, I'd call it inspirational chaos.
Freedom from social patterns, (and above):
Some kind of revolution maybe, hippies, the french revolution.
Freedom from biological patterns, (and above):
This is the kind of chaos scientists talk about in chaos theory.
(Actually, this is not quite true. I believe there are more than
one discipline here. When talking weather, this is it. But I also
think that chaos theory is used when describing the intricate
patterns on i.e. oak leaves.)
Freedom from inorganic patterns, (and above):
Now, that's my kind of chaos.
We're talking pre-big-bang-non-existence-chaos-big-time.
Am I rationalizing too much?
Magnus
-- 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 - 16:42:40 CEST