Keith A. Gillette (gillette@tahc.state.tx.us)
Mon, 23 Mar 1998 04:49:54 +0100
Reply to Ken regarding The Force For Greater Information Content ...
At 2:01 PM -0600 3/1/98, clark wrote:
> Keith, your E-mail address seems to indicate Texas. As one who was raised
>on the banks of Red River in Oklahoma I am wondering why you have not taken
>this opportunity to say a few words about Texas :-). Isn't it fun? Ken
>Clark
Ken,
While I was indeed born in Texas and find myself living here happily once
again, I grew up in Wisconsin, less than an hour's drive from the
Minnesotan cities mentioned in *ZMM* and *Lila*. As a result of this
upbringing, I've been inculcated with the fine values of the midwest. The
sort of self-aggrandizement evident in "Don't Mess With Texas" bumper
stickers is quite foreign to me. You'll get no praise of Texas from me
other than that I like the weather and find Austin to be a fine city.
On to the philosophical question of The Force For Greater Information
Content. I realize this reply is quite dated by now and there's been a
whole thread on the subject, but I wanted to make one comment on your idea,
to which I have a certain affinity. You wrote:
> I tried a similar substitution using "Force for Greater Information
>Content" and found that it worked just as well and made more sense to me.
>
> It should be obvious to all of us that there is a force in the universe
>that is acting to oppose entropy and store a greater content of information
>in the universe. It is evident in the formation of galaxies, stars,
>evolution, and eventually us. It is continuing to act in the processes of
>our minds.
On the whole, I see this as a very servicable, alternative description of
Dynamic Quality. At the same time, isn't there something missing from this
description? In a later post, you say:
At 11:56 AM -0600 3/5/98, clark wrote:
>When I say Dharma, in my mind I mean the
>force for greater information content which is the result of the process
>which has produced the universe and everything in it
Where is morality under this description? When we identify the ultimate
reality as Quality, the ethical component of MoQ follows directly. If we
identify the ultimate reality as Information Content, how do we include
moral judgments in the schema? Like the synonym "Conceptually Unknown", the
descriptor "The Force For Greater Information Content" seems to only
capture part of what we mean when we say Quality--both miss the moral
component. I suppose one could argue that Dynamic Quality doesn't capture
the mystical (Conceptually Unknown) aspect very well, but I think the moral
force is the primary identification and that the name we give it should
reflect that.
No real argument with your view, though, Ken. I think it's a valuable aid
in attempting to understand the fundamental process of the universe.
______________________________________________________________________
gillette@tahc.state.tx.us -- <URL:http://www.detling.ml.org/gillette/>
-- 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 - 16:42:57 CEST