Hi Horse, Diana and Squad,
Jonathan:
> DQ = potential
>
Horse:>>>
I can see the reasoning here (and from your other posts) but the
objection I have
here is that 'potential' implies the totality of the possible future
states which is,
for all intents and purposes, infinite. As I see it, DQ relates to the
actual not to
the possible, in the same way that the state space of potential
mutations is not
the same as the state space of actual mutations in evolutionary terms.
All that is
possible is not the same as that which is probable or that which occurs.
Apologies if I have misinterpreted your postings.
<<<<
Horse, possibilities may be infinite, but they are not unlimited. It's
not true to say that anything can happen, because some things can't.
Potential can only be recognised if you can see how it can be realised.
The analogy to DQ works for me!
Horse:>>>>
One very useful place to start looking for DQ (or Dynamic Value), in the
SOM
objective sense, is in the area of research into complexity - the Santa
Fe Institute
for Complex Studies is a good place to start. Why do simple systems
evolve into
complex systems? There is no _objective_ reason why this should occur
and yet
the evidence in support of these phenomena is available in abundance.
<<<<
I disagree that there is no objective reason for complex behaviour.
Complex behaviour is a direct consequence of the natural behaviour of
the components. What's true though, is that there is no causative force
(in the Newtonian sense) operating at the component level to drive the
change.
Horse:>>>>
...Where phenomena are
considered in isolation they appear static and are easier to study. When
they are
considered holistically, dynamic relationships appear - as if by magic.
...
<<<<<
New behaviours appear "as if by magic" but are really inevitable. It's
not nature doing strange things. It's us failing to anticipate the
complex behaviour. I always say that biological evolution is inevitable.
Given everything we know, evolution would be the expected behaviour of
biological populations over time. The onus is on dissenters to prove
that it DIDN'T happen.
Horse:>>>>>
I know this isn't going to make me Mr Popular but I would suggest that
an initial
division would be into Contributive and Formative DQ. The former is the
recognition of the new whilst the latter is responsible for its
creation.
Contributive DQ in an aesthetic (subjective) sense is the relationship
between the
observer and the observed, the hearer and the heard etc.. Contributive
DQ in the
scientific (objective) sense is the relationship between the
constituents of a
system, the constituted system and other systems.
They are one and the same thing.
Formative DQ (aesthetic/subjective) is what creates works of art.
Formative DQ
(science/objective) is what creates 'objective' reality.
They are also one and the same thing.
<<<<<<<
Horse, your "Contributive DQ" sounds like SQ to me. Specifically, it is
that part of SQ which guides how DQ unfolds (the channel down the
mountainside).
Diana:>>>>>
Their answer is that it is a subjective thing and consequently cannot
be proven. It's the wrong answer, but that's their answer nonetheless.
...
<sigh> Read what I wrote Jonathan.
...
I give up.
...
Actually I was thinking ...I mean I'm obviously not getting
anywhere by being direct and logical. Maybe they aren't reading my posts
properly, or maybe they're not opening their minds to them. It's not
that I'm wrong, I'm just not being persuasive.
<<<<<
Diana, let me challenge you to provide your own answer to the question.
Regards to all,
Jonathan
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:35 BST