Hi all,
Sitting in a train, after having an important talk, I remembered an idea I had
on one of my long walks. What I wrote down since then is a lot weird stuff, but
those thoughts seem to fit in a larger modell. Most of it consist of more or
less loose pieces of thought and so I'd like to give you my starting point
first.
9.11.00
[...]
Is there good or bad instability?
Exists such a position of (good?) instability, it is sufficient to give it a
subtle push, to evoke a change of position. It is then not even necessary - for
the one to give this subtle push - to know, which direction is needed(?)
-position of instability
-narrow eventcone
An eventcone is dependant on stability/instability of the sorounding conditions.
Some thoughts concerning 'system' vs non-system
A system is basically defined by an existence of a region/zone in the
multidimensional compound/relation of Interdependencies, where there is a local
increasing of (those) interdependencies and which is marked off by a decrease/a
drop of those interdependencies.
A non-system is a region/zone, which lacks of such a discontinuity of
interdependencies
[...]
Later on, I exchanged interdependencies by 'intervaluation' (for more than on
reason) mainly to outline the described definition is not equal to a
mathematical-physical description, based on 'LAWS of nature'. Which does not
mean, that basical patterns are absent.
In the meantime I created a few new words, because of its huge overload of
meaning; for example I considered 'system' as quite misleading, for what I have
in mind, not to mention the large variety of possibilitíes to use it. Actually
this is the reason, that I found it worth to think about it in front of MoQs
background, but as we all know 'system' is at least one concept, everybody would
give you a differing definition.
system:= elvaleach ELements VALuing EACH (other) - but 'other' is redundant, I
guess
Sounds a bit weird or ridiculous, doesn't it? But I think it's sometimes
important to create new words for concepts, you consider to be different of an
old one.
The 'elvaleach' concept, I created during my thinkings about the smallest
possible 'system', concerning my 'system' (the idea I described above).
11.11.00
[...]
> Elvaleach tries somehow to pack a minimum-condition in a concept, that is necessary to > describe a 'functioning-something', a 'more-than an element', a 'something in meaning and > purpose over a single element exceeding'.
[...]
> , that a 'sytem' is at least in need of consisting of more than one element, that 'value' > each other [...]
[one element is valuing the other and vice versa]
> with an intervaluation-relation of more than 0
[the mathematical expression only makes sense, if you make the definition, that
the smaller value-index has to be in the denominator, but if the smaller
value-index is zero it gets wrong. But whatsoever, it tells that if one part of
the 'valuing partners' has no 'interest', i.e. its value is zero, the 'treaty'
could not be fixed]
Furthermore, I tried to apply my concept on atomic and subatomic levels, such as
the Higgs-Boson, found some seemingly interesting relations (concerning my
concept!), but because I'm far from really understanding, what those
'Higgs-boson-Hunters' want to tell us exactly, I dropped it finally. The
'global-zero-element' - if it really was - would consist of only one
'dimension', for example energy (heuristically), but then no mass.
It sounds weird, isn't? But are those contradictions on the subatomic level not
weird themselves?
'dimension'; 'dimensionability':= every quality criteria, that opens up a new
range of possibility. For example, I consider the ability to replicate, or the
ability to build social conglomerations also as 'dimensions'.
'capacity':= to fill up on dimension/ to expand inbetween one dimension. I've
been drawing the conclusion, that an approximation to the capacity of on
dimension makes it more likely to find a new dimension. (note: The ONE and the
MANY!)
'totality' := (not intended but) almost the same as the 'totality'-concept of
Fritjof Capra and some mystic thinkers, as also some idealist use it. It looks
as if it has been stored in my sub-consciousness, to come out at this moment.
Everything has an influence on everything.
Thought about 'space' and 'space-time' and found, that not 'space' nor
'space-time' - which is obviously the same, only space is 'borderline-valued'
for human-beings - could be something else than a dimension, compared to other
dimensions I see (I mean the mathematical expression - Limes -- O/oo - can
anybody help me with the right expression, perhaps?).
So for the moment, I consider space/space-time also as a dimension.
The positive 'spin' that seems to exists in every dimension from the first
beginnings, could be - what we would call in the pirsigian sense - indeed
'quality'. A dynamic force. that is driving everything forward. As far as I
don't know, if 'spin' is identical to 'dynamic quality', I will use spin as a
provisory concept.
'point of instability' (I tend to exchange this too, because I do mean a zone
instead of a point):= This is a very important concept for me. An Elvaleach
(system), that enters this zone of instability (a flickering) is open to dynamic
change (the potential differs though!); it tries to avoid this 'point of
instability'. It does so, by means of permanent 'swinging' between certain
limits.
Conclusion: There is no whatsoever really 'static' elvaleach. Everything REALLY
static would be dammed to suffer from permanent loss of 'dimension' or
'capacity'.
'Capacity' is analogous to summation, while a plus of dimensions are near to
multiplication.
The ONE and the MANY:= represents a strategy an elvaleach is trying to follow.
It either trys to occupy a dimension, or creates a new dimensions, which is
'filled up'again,i.e. until dimensions capacity reaches it's limits.
'dimension' and 'levels' (MoQ-levels) are parallel, having also the same
starting point, but no end so far; new dimensions can always be created. I
decided that 'dimension' - which is still quite vague to me - and 'level' are
not identical. A level shift is an important creation of at least one dimension,
or perhaps a produkt of two dimension at once.
low-grade intervaluation/high-grade intervaluation:= A high-grade intervaluation
can be idealized (for pratical purpose only!) A low-grade intervaluation has to
be avoided for every Elvaleach (system), because this leads to instability.
For example the situation of the US-election is a low-grade one. Two opposing
elvaleaches are in competition to each other and because those two elvaleaches
standing in a high-grade intervaluation to the most powerful elvaleach on earth,
the United States of America, we do have no reason to find anything funny about
this (besides, because there are many subelvaleaches, it is not exactly
dangerous)
Static latching vs flexibility are also strategies of higher elvaleaches or is
it a dimension? If they are a dimension, they belong together as one dimension.
Motion is also a basic concept in this description, but I don't see so far,
where it belongs to! A dimension?
I have to stop for now, I see! It is difficult to describe the concept, when
only numbering up the elemets I created or found. If indeed somebody is
interested I would try to give you a more coherent descripton. I applied this on
many subjects of consideration and it seems to work, although much is vague
about it. It makes no problems to look at the higher levels, but produces a
strange feeling when applied to the inorganic level. If all this is nonsense, it
is nonsense because of the inorganic level, I believe. The most appropriate
would be to look for examples. (If there is some interest, otherwise I'm not
going to get you on your nerves)
I'm sorry this has becoming a patchwork only!
What do you think?
Thanks for taking the time and looking forward to hear from you,
JoVo
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:50 BST