Re: MD Cybernetics and sq evolution - Secondary ontology as harmony.

From: mark maxwell (laughingpines@yahoo.co.uk)
Date: Sat Sep 24 2005 - 23:44:24 BST

  • Next message: Case: "Re: MD The MOQ implies that there is more to reality than DQ & SQ."

    Hello void,
    I have been a little manic of late considering one
    possible conclusion of a proposed MOQ secondary
    ontology: The secondary ontology moves closer to DQ
    than primary, sq ontology.
    Imagine that!
    A description of experience which is closer to DQ than
    subjects, objects, and their derived relationships.

    Like falling on deaf ears...
    Mark

    --- mark maxwell <laughingpines@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

    > Hello All,
    > I've been thinking about feedback loops as described
    > in cybernetics.
    >
    > The word cybernetics comes from the Greek,
    > Steers-man,
    > and has been closely linked with the evolution of
    > patterns; all patterns.
    >
    > It strikes me that the metaphor of a steersman
    > implicitly acknowledges motion towards a sweet-spot.
    >
    > ZMM describes the 'steering' of the mechanic, the
    > bike, the life, toward the sweet spot. The MOQ
    > suggests an ontology of patterns and DQ. Steering,
    > the
    > way i think of it in MOQ terms, becomes an emerging
    > coherent relationship between sq patterns in
    > response
    > to DQ.
    >
    > Cybernetics can be applied here:
    >
    > Primary MOQ ontology comprises DQ and the four sq
    > patterns.
    >
    > Secondary MOQ ontology would comprise coherent
    > relationships of peak excellence in cybernetic
    > (steers-man-like) process.
    >
    > Secondary events distinguish between Primary 'what
    > are' (cycle, man, spanner, oil, logical symbolism,
    > etc.) and what happens or emerges from these in
    > coherent relationships (maintenance, riding, etc.)
    > Secondary MOQ ontology comprises SQ patterns tending
    > towards DQ. Hence, a steers-man-like process.
    >
    > DQ permeates throughout, but alters exceptional
    > Primary ontology at the sweet-spot.
    >
    > There may be an empirically verifiable value to
    > Secondary MOQ ontology: For example, if you review
    > your experience as the spectator of an excellent
    > game
    > of football, how may you describe the build up and
    > scoring of that superb goal you saw in the first
    > half
    > in MOQ terms?
    >
    > The play and subsequent goal was widely applauded
    > by
    > everyone as superb - no analysis required. But upon
    > analysis, may it be said that Secondary ontological
    > MOQ relationships emerged from more basic Primary
    > MOQ
    > ontology?
    >
    > A difficulty is the sense in which it may stated
    > that
    > patterns of sq are more fundamental than coherent
    > relationships?
    > Perhaps all patterns are relationships?
    >
    > An answer may be Harmony; Harmony is a Secondary MOQ
    > ontology.
    >
    > For Harmony to establish there must be prior
    > (Primary)
    > relationships of some description?
    >
    > For example, we may imagine nothing but Inorganic
    > patterns. From these patterns emerge harmonic
    > relationships. If this is a feature of value
    > evolution, then Intellectual harmony and Inorganic
    > harmony share a common feature with all other
    > levels;
    > Organic and Social relationships. In other words,
    > harmony may be valued by Intellectual relationships,
    > because harmony is everywhere. This may imply
    > 'resonance' between evolutionary related levels of
    > value patterns rather than an application or
    > imposition by one i.e. the Intellectual.
    >
    > We may have an argument against idealism here:
    > Secondary MOQ ontology (Harmony) is found at all
    > evolutionary related levels (and is therefore
    > binding
    > across those levels).
    >
    > Because of the length of time (or ability of sq
    > relationships to respond to DQ, which may be the
    > same
    > thing)? involved in Inorganic and Biological
    > evolution, the introduction of a distinction between
    > 'what are' (low response to DQ) and 'what is
    > emerging'
    > (high response to DQ) can appear unnecessary.
    >
    > However, the length of time (or ability of sq
    > relationships to respond to DQ, which may be the
    > same
    > thing)? at the Social and Intellectual levels
    > becomes
    > significant.
    >
    > Here is what I'm trying to say:
    > Imagine the football game again. At the beginning of
    > the game, our MOQ ontology says there are [Ant:
    > Primary MOQ ontology comprises DQ and the four sq
    > patterns.] While the game is in play, Secondary MOQ
    > ontological 'items' or events emerge for the
    > duration.
    > (This is why they have been difficult to formulate
    > up
    > to now - our cultural bias tends to have us look for
    > 'objects' which endure, but Secondary events emerge
    > and then dissipate. However, they deserve to appear
    > on
    > our ontological list as 'good' events.) These events
    > are evolving relationships which, over generations,
    > change the character of the game: The description of
    > a
    > game of football in MOQ terms reflects cosmological
    > evolution on a micro-scale.
    >
    > To sum up:
    > 1. The MOQ describes ontological events, not
    > objects.
    > 2. Primary MOQ ontology is four sq levels and DQ.
    > 3. Cybernetics steers primary sq patterns toward
    > coherent, secondary MOQ ontology.
    > 4. Primary MOQ ontology is concerned with what IS
    > 5. Secondary MOQ ontology is concerned with what
    > happens.
    > 6. A key distinguishing feature of secondary
    > ontology
    > is Harmony.
    >
    > Any thoughts are welcome.
    >
    > Mark
    >
    >
    >
    >
    ___________________________________________________________
    >
    > To help you stay safe and secure online, we've
    > developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre.
    > http://uk.security.yahoo.com
    >
    >
    > MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    > Mail Archives:
    > Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    > http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    > Nov '02 Onward -
    >
    http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    > MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
    >
    > To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the
    > instructions at:
    > http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
    >
    >

                    
    ___________________________________________________________
    To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    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 2.1.5 : Sun Sep 25 2005 - 00:50:50 BST