From: mark maxwell (laughingpines@yahoo.co.uk)
Date: Wed Nov 09 2005 - 20:25:55 GMT
Hi Mark,
I'm interested in the idea of chaos (and randomness)
in relation to DQ...
Dynamic Quality I see as something as yet formless but
just about to start to crystallise; a random event
could begin this crystallisation. On the other hand
some people would argue that there is no randomness
because everything is ultimately causally connected.
Hello Pete,
Let's teasel out the threads here, no particular
order:
1. Chaos
2. Randomness
3. Universal causal connection
4. Crystallisation
5. DQ
I don't equate chaos and randomness.
The random is a term applied to patterns which may or
may not have an underlying structure. For example, an
event, x may have a patterned structure, y as yet
unperceived
The chaotic has no patterned structure.
That is a distinction i wish to maintain; chaos and
randomness are not synonymous
Universal causation. The MOQ dispenses with causation
and replaces it with value. We may still suggest that
all values are linked and that is important. But the
nature of their linkage becomes one of evolutionary
related developments. For example:
If a rock (inorganic pattern) falls on your head
(organic, social and intellectual patterns) while out
hiking, it may be said you where hurt by a random
event. I think we can look at this another way, and
suggest that low patterns of sq immorally disrupted
higher patterns of sq. I think this shifts emphasis
away from randomness and over to a kind of, 'it
happened, and it had moral consequences' way of
looking at it - a value centric view, rather than
implicating randomness.
Crystallisation. Taking the above on board we could
ask, 'Are intellectual crystallisation's initiated by
inorganic, organic or social patterns as random
events?'
Taking random to mean a potentially unknown
behavioural structures, it could be suggested that
inorganic compounds (drugs) can trigger intellectual
crystallisation. Is that a random event? If one were
'slipped' the compound, perhaps. But slipping has an
agent behind it, and agents are forrests of value
patterns. Accidental exposure would be so bizarre as
as to be termed just that, accidental, rather than
random. Tricky.
I have a feeling that any pattern can trigger
crystallisation within a relationship which has opened
up to Dynamic influence. I think it is a description
of that 'opening up' which is important.
DQ cannot be conceptualised so i wish to shift all
descriptions onto the side of sq. When you say,
"Dynamic Quality I see as something as yet formless
but just about to start to crystallise" i think we may
better say, "a sq-sq relationship as something
formless but just about to start to crystallise" See
the shift in emphasis?
Always talk about sq approaching or retreating from
the unconceptual DQ.
Chaos, for me, is best described within that, 'opening
up' relationship between patterns of sq which approach
DQ. Chaos may be true 'value acid.'
An example i had used a few years ago came back to me
while thinking about this: White noise.
WN can be used to torture people. I think it works so
well because Human value awareness seeks aesthetic
patterns which WN can never provide: WN is chaotic,
and as such drives people mad after prolonged
exposure. No matter how hard you try you can't find
patterns in white noise and that constant shifting
away from any form of pattern is awful to experience.
There are social and intellectual analogues of white
noise it seems to me: A social example may be the
deliberate adoption of strategies which unnerve other
people. A social form of mind game. I've seen that
happen myself and it is very unpleasant. If you've
never seen it happen it can come as quite a shock to
discover just how evil some people can be.
An intellectual analogue of white noise would be, for
example, well? Best left unsaid because i don't wish
to upset anyone. But i have very clear examples in
mind. I can say, without being insulting, that the
intellectual patterns i have in mind are propounded by
people who actively engage in generating a dense fog
of complexity which is then mistaken for academic
scrutiny and probity, when in fact it's all a pile of
incoherent shit.
Thoughts Pete?
All the best,
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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 10 2005 - 00:26:37 GMT