Hi, Ken --
Glad to hear we have this common interest!
>Did you catch the news bit
>a while back to the effect that another solar system has been discovered
>that has planets in it? Wonder how many billions of other systems similar
>to ours is out there. Too bad the speed of light is so slow as to prevent
>communication.
I'm a bit embarrassed to admit that you know more about what's going on
in the space/astronomy biz than I do! But your speculation as to the
existence of many other planetary systems is certainly justfied.
I'm basically in agreement with your take on DQ, in particular: that
it's much bigger than just human experience; and that DQ and sq "need"
each other, in a kind of yin/yang sense. sq has been getting a bad rap
here! ;^)
It may be a semantic problem, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that
one can't be aware of the operation of DQ except statically. I'm
esp. thinking about Fred's recent discussion of his method for writing
comedy. If you laugh, it's a spontaneous reaction to the DQ of the
situation or joke. So there's an awareness there; it's just that you
just can't say right off what it is you're aware of. It isn't until
you've had time to organize the experience into a static pattern that
you could hope to say what was so funny. There I go, limiting the
discussion to human experience again! Oh, well.
I don't think we're that far apart, but I can't say for sure.
I guess the only other difficulty I have is . . .
> I am still persuaded (wish I could find that quote) that Dynamic Quality
>is still the same DQ that was brought into existence at the beginning and
>that we can not be aware of the operation of DQ except statically.
I think it's time for a "Guidebook to Lila" -- let's bug Mssrs. Disanto
& Steele and see if we can persuade them! ;^)
But more seriously, do you really need to have a "beginning" to DQ, or is
this a linguistic convenience? Esp., in light of Gribbin's book? These
days I'm thinking more in terms of "Always was, always will be."
One last bit: another book you might want to look into (if by some slim
chance you haven't already), by Stanley Kaufman, titled "At Home in the
Universe," ties in well with what Gribbin has written, but he's coming at
it from a different angle. His training is biology, and the basic thesis
of this book is that the basic material stuff of life -- atoms and molecules
-- have a "built-in" tendency to self-organize. The logical extension is
that the existence of life is not a miracle, but actually to be expected.
The "miracle", if any, is in the particular forms that life takes -- which
I think you can probably tie in with the idea of DQ.
Jonathan, if I'm not mistaken this is at least somewhat in your line
of expertise. I'd be curious to hear your opinion, if any, on Kaufman's
ideas.
Regards,
Jeff
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:58 BST