Jonathan B. Marder (marder@agri.huji.ac.il)
Thu, 2 Jul 1998 18:38:16 +0100
Hi Magnus, Martin, Ant and Squad,
Magnus wrote:
>My apologies, your proposal of SQ as 'intellectualised description of
>DQ' sounds like the intellectual level to me. I jumped to the
conclusion
>that you regarded only intellectualised descriptions as really static,
>i.e. ever lasting.
All DESCRIPTION is in the intellectual level. Description is an
intellectual process. Amoebae don't describe things (in the normal
sense) because they don't have the intellectual capacity.
[snip]
>I equal 'thing' with a MoQ 'pattern', then the difference is clear to
>me.
>DQ is responsible for creating new patterns in a completely
>non-patterned way.
>
I can go with that (DQ is not part of the 4 levels themselves, but
contributes to their formation).
[snip]
>> Magnus, please explain the difference between "the quality event" and
>> DQ.
>>
>I'll try. In my first post on this subject, I wrote:
>
>To be a little more specific, I usually look at the Quality Event as
>two static patterns affecting each other. Each being the subject from
>its point of view and the other being the object.
But that's already all SQ. The static patterns and the interaction
mechanism are all part of the description of what happens.
>The dynamic part of
>the Quality Event is the ever present uncertainty in each and every QE.
>For inorganic Quality Events, DQ is called the Heisenberg uncertainty
>principle. I bet you could find similar principles for the other levels
>too.
That's SQ too (the Heisenberg uncertainty principal) - probably that
is;-). The principal allows us to associate probabilities to some class
of event. If that event happens many times, we will know the overall
outcome. e.g. toss a coin 100 times and you'll get very close to 50
times heads, 50 tails. The "uncertainty" is that the description itself
is not rigourous for each specific coin toss. This is exactly what
troubled Einstein about quantum mechanics - the description was
incomplete (less than 100% rigourous).
>DQ is preintellectual, I agree. But it's also presocial, prebiological
>and preinorganic. I think that your description sounds as if the only
>real things in reality are intellectual patterns and the rest are just
>'things that happen', or things that you, i.e. a mind, observes.
>
>Please correct me if I interpreted you wrong again.
Observation includes some sort of "registration" of the event - already
pattern. Without the registration - the leaving of evidence - the
"happening" might as well not have happened. It is not part of our
(description of) reality.
==================================
Martin wrote:
[excerpt from Glove]
>>constants, or absolutes are used in physics is because
>>they HAVE to be used in order
>> to get value out of equations...we apparently
>>need them to make meaning out of universe.
>>but the fact absolutes and constants are used does
>>not mean they exist.
>I would have to disagree here. The speed of light is 300,000,000
>meters/second in a vaccuum. This is real and it is absolute. Light
>goes at no other speed in a vaccuum, it can't go faster, and neither
can
>anything else (yet another absolute).
[snip]
Einstein recognised that our common concept of "measurement" is always
relative to "c", the velocity of light (or rather, electromagnetic
radiation). Thus, the constancy of "c" is axiomatic. "Unification"
theories are all aimed at reducing physical descriptions to the fewest
possible axioms. Thus, theories like relativity, quantum mechanics,
Newton's laws, thermodynamics all become expressions of those same
axioms - without the addition of any new constants.
[snip]
>[but] You can't have absolutes...stagnation....constants...they are
>anti-quality!" [snip]
[on the other hand]
>Things only last if they have stagnant aspects. A thing can only
become
>better if it has a stagnant base to grow on. Stagnantion, constants,
>and absolutes ARE ALSO GOOD.
This is Pirsig's "static latching". Stagnation is too negative a word to
use in this context.
Axioms are always absolute and constant in their application --- BUT we
can adopt new axioms if we can find a BETTER way to describe things.
===================================
Ant wrote:
>Evening all!
>
>Heartbreak Hotel (Part Two)...
Ant,
I agree that it is difficult to make sense from Glove's contributions
(by his own admission), but I think that you are unduly unkind and
disrespectful (against the normal character of the Squad). Furthermore,
there is little in your contributions indicating your own stance on the
concepts under discussion - if Glove is too vague, then merely
criticising him is also vague.
[excerpt from Glove]
>>my writings are all nonsensical until you can let go of judgements of
>>right and wrong in your own mind, as the reader, which i admit is
asking
>>quite alot.
>Yes, I think I know where your idea of letting go of right
>and wrong is leading to, Glove. I see myself in 1944 in
>Germany... I am surrounded by naked people...
[snip]
Ant, I'm sure that the whole LS (including Glove) goes along with your
moral stance. What's surprising is that the morals of that nation became
so corrupted - what philosophy led them down that path. However, to
raise the subject in this context is sophistry at its worst. After
reading ZMM, I didn't think I'd ever make that accusation, but there it
is.
Jonathan
Jonathan B. Marder <MARDER@agri.huji.ac.il>
Department of Agricultural Botany, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Faculty of Agriculture, P.O.Box 12, Rehovot 76100, ISRAEL
Phone: +972 8 9481918 Fax: +972 8 9467763
Web page: http://www.agri.huji.ac.il/~marder
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:27 CEST