Hi Elephant
The month was out before our discussion was finished, so I'll continue it here
as Rick did. I'm not even sure you read MD but here we go.
You wrote:
>
> > From: Magnus Berg <mcmagnus@subdimension.com>
> > To be more precise, the static patterns that are the glue between quality
> > events are the quantum patterns that we perceive as the passing of time.
>
> Precise? Some joke, surely?
Not at all, have you already forgotten my thoughts about this from the
June topic space-time on MF? Or did you think I was joking then too?
I'm not.
> > Reality is Quality which is an event, the quality event. This quality
> > event consists of two parts, the static which is the source of the
> > subject and the object, and the dynamic which is the unpredictability
> > of each quality event. It's the dynamic part that is the source of all
> > real change, the part that makes even the most predictable event to
> > sometimes turn out a little differently.
>
> This is rather what I feared you might say. I am entirely at a loss to
> understand how dynamic quality, which is a continuum, can form part of an
> event. You appear not to understand the difference between these two
> concepts, 'continuum', and 'event'.
I don't consider DQ to be a 'continuum'. See below.
> To begin with, in order for something to be part of an event it would have
> to be a property of that event (by the meaning of these words). But dynamic
> quality is *not* a property (I don't think any serious readers of RMP can be
> in any doubt over this and I hardly need to explain again why that is so.
> OK I will. Dynamic Quality comes before subjects and objects because it
> comes before *all* grammatical distinctions: it is what there is to describe
> (reality), rather than some part of the description).
I disagree that DQ comes before subjects and objects. Subjects and objects
are SQ and SQ is the sibling of DQ, so subjects and objects are siblings
of DQ. Only Quality=Reality itself comes before all of that.
> Second, supposing (per impossible) that DQ *could* be a property of an
> event, it would then be necessary for there to be lots of distinguishable
> DQ's, as many as there are distinguishable events. This is because you say
> that it is the "dynamic part" that is the source all the change of which an
> event is part. If all events were related to their successors and
> predecessors in exactly the same way, ie with exactly the same differences,
> it would be plausible to claim that the DQ which is the change-acting part
> of the event is the same in every case. But it is obvious that no such
> event could be so related and still be called an 'event'. Therefore, if DQ
> were to be the change acting part of an event it would have to be
> fragmented: there would have to be lots of different DQ's. But this is
> against the definition of Dynamic Quality, viz as an aesthetic continuum.
> If it were Fragmented, or for that matter fragmentable, it would not be a
> continuum. QED.
That chain of thought contained several steps I disagree with. And second,
I still don't consider DQ to be a continuum.
> DQ is *not* a part of the definition, either of a quality event nor of a
> Subject-Object pairing (since you persist in distinguishing the two). You
> are confusing yourself by thinking of 'dynamic' on the debased usage of that
> word in commerce and advertising. A washing powder, which has a 'dynamic'
> ingredient, is not 'dynamic' in the same sense that dynamic quality is
> dynamic. The relevant ingredient in washing powder is perfectly static in
> it's form as an ingredient: it is it's *effects* and it's *reactions* that
> are called "dynamic". In contrast the Dynamism of DQ does not lie in some
> transformation from an inactive to an active state: DQ is *never* static, DQ
> *never* has a state - that's why it is called "dynamic".
I never claimed DQ to be static nor having a state, I only claim that
DQ is a part of our reality. Not a very eye-catching claim I thought.
> And this is my concluding point. Since you have allowed to DQ the
> characteristics of being a property, of being fragmentable, of being static
> in the definition of an event or subject-object pairing, you have in fact
> allowed to DQ *all* the characteristics of SQ.
No! SQ are patterns that can act as subjects or objects in a quality event.
DQ is not a subject or object.
> I offered you another account of the relationship between DQ and SQ,
> according to which the last is to the first as a diary to a life. Having
> heard your competing account, I have decided, for the moment, to stick with
> my own.
I disagree. It's the same old map-metaphor over again. Reality is nothing
that happens "out there" which we just see and describe using different
patterns. We are also parts of that reality, the diary and the map are
also parts of the reality. I'd say that a diary is intellectual patterns
and life is all kinds of patterns, plus DQ of course.
To me, it sounds as if you've given up on being able to describe reality,
so you call reality DQ and then use SQ as an approximation of that reality.
I think we can do much better than that. I think we should consider DQ to
be the source of all real change, and very much a part of reality, the
same reality that SQ also is a part of.
> >> MAGNUS
> >>> I think that reality is best described by quality events, and that we
> >>> deduce the static patterns from those quality events.
>
> Well, if you think this, I mean about the deduction and the implication that
> the quality events and the static patterns are distinct, your thought will
> presumably be based on some actual experience. Would you like to give us an
> example?
An event based reality, together with a quantum level below the inorganic,
explains the wave-particle dualism of electromagnetism. How do you accomplish
that with your life-diary reality without two diaries?
> And Jonathan was right to say, about you, that
> >> By dividing quality into discreet "events", you are already in the realm of
> >> patterns.
>
> Magnus replied:
> > Not quite, DQ always has influence over each event, so the patterns aren't
> > all static. They are somewhat unpatterned.
>
> Well, if you can say that patterns are not patterned, and maintain a smile,
> it really is politics you should be engaged in, not philosophy.
No, it's just reality. In reality, there is no such thing as a completely
patterned pattern. Given enough time, every event, no matter how static
(i.e. predictable), will turn out a little bit different than usual.
Magnus
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
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 - 16:01:27 BST