From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Sun Jan 04 2004 - 16:08:06 GMT
Hi Platt
Well I think as you go from molecular
combinations to plants to animals to man
you are moving from homogeniety to
heterogeniety and from constraint to greater
freedom and possibilities for DQ expression.
So the kind of freedom and plurality expressed
in human individuality is exactly what we mean when
we talk about subjectivity. Human agency is the greatest
achievement of DQ to date. As Pirsig indicates the value
that seems to be expressed in cosmic evolution is that
of increased complexity which is delivering greater realised
freedom. I think the point is to value whatever is achieved
perhaps asking what expresses a greater realisation of freedom.
Without invoking the dark and destructive side of DQ.
Number is related to measure and is will apply more or less
well depending on how static is the entity being measured.
Nuclear particles are of course impossible to pin down
in terms of both momentum and position and are often measured
in terms of group rather than individual behaviour. SO it is with
hard to pin down human being. Is this a good picture we ask?
10% hated it 50% liked it 40% loved it. An active particle or creature
cannot be pinned down and determined. Put cat in room, leave cat fot ten
minutes,
cat still in locked room but you cannot say where it will be. Random moving
particles
are pretty much the same. However, a cannon ball to turn to mechanics, will
stay put. The energy contained in the ball is expressed mainly in terms of
mass,
the energy is constrained and is therefore subject to deterministic
predictability,
although in fact the ball is vibrating and can move a very small amount in
an unpredictable
direction. But small enough to ignore and can also be shot in a reasonably
predictable way.
Try shooting an electron in a similar way and you need to take cover,
although patterns emerge
from groups of particles. Numbers and hence laws are great when levels of
freedom, i.e. loose energy, is
constrained. Put a person in front of a picture and ask for an opinion and
you do not have any idea what
they might say. Number, ratio, symmetry are pretty much tied to the static
and the bound.
Perhaps someone can add some ideas from chaos theory and fractals (where
incomplete information is
handled mathematically) to this. By the way plants show full symmetry,
animals lose back to front
symmetry and humans lose perfect facial symmetry compared to animals
and have handedness and differential brain function left to right (as Arthur
M Young point out). Also
note importance of individuality in human face uniqueness.
regards
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: "Platt Holden" < >
To: < >
Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2004 12:46 PM
Subject: Re: MD Measuring values
> Hi David M,
>
> > The entire cosmos is a singularity and a whole.
> > You cannot weigh or compare it to anything else
> > because there is no anything else. It is an absolute,
> > a unity. Measure/number is the activity of division and
> > seperation. The whole is divided into an static quality of 2. The sky
above
> > the earth below, and the third that stands back and divides: active DQ.
And
> > at some time I am a rich man sitting on my big pile of coal and you are
a
> > poor man with no coal. And then we stop valuing coal so highly. And so
the
> > dance of differenciation and valuation goes on.
>
> Yes. We divide to survive.
>
> > Numbers are great because they are so easy to agree on.
> > A simplification of complex experience. So tied to the division
> > of resoures. Let's divide the sweets 50/50, that's 8 each I think.
> > You did 4 hours work I did 2 but I'm more qualified than you
> > so I get 80%. 2 hydrogen atoms to one of oxygen a recipe for
> > making water. Measure, division, and the allocation of reward.
> > A communicable description for control, it is no good me telling
> > you that I used a bucket of oxygen and a bag of hydrogen to make
> > water, we agree a means of simple communication. Number equals
> > simplification and communicability and recordability to make successful
> > control of materials and even people.
>
> Number works beautifully at the lower levels. The question is why?
> And why not at the upper levels?
>
> > Simple but not too simple to be
> > successful. But can all of reality be described by number. Clearly not.
> > Number forms a small part of the total words in a language. Many of the
> > words relate to value, non quantitative value. How does activity relate
to
> > number? What attracts the proton to the electron? The attraction of
> > numbers? Perhaps not.
>
> Physical forces are expressible in numbers, but no one claims numbers
> create the forces. The unsolved problem is the reason for relationship
> between the numbers and the forces.
>
> > Concepts always imply opposites. Ugly/beauty equality/inequality
> > fair/unfair. Without the ugly we would have no beauty. Without
> > opposites there would be nothing rather than something.
> > Such is our finite existence. The trick, I think, is to realise
> > that each pole has their uses. When you are not well you may wish
> > to cease having sexual attention. It is great that some people are
taller
> > than others. It would be terrible for any one pole to be taken to the
> > extreme. It would be terrible to have no beauty in your life, or too
little
> > money, or too much unfairness. On one day patriotism is good, on another
> > bad. Nationalism has had very great and very dark days. SOM has its
> > achievments and evils. Numbers are great for counting, rubbish for art
> > appreciation.
>
> Agree. Concepts require opposites. Black would not be without white there
> too. Not sure what that has to do with my question about how to measure
> values at upper levels. As for art appreciation, a trip to an auction
> house will show numerical values represented by money as a measure of art
> appreciation. Or, check with an art appraiser. Question: Are such monetary
> values strictly social level, or do they indicate values at a higher
> level? Must higher level values always revert to "I know what I like"? In
> other words, are intellectual and artistic values "subjective"? If so,
> what happens to the denial of subjectivity in the MOQ?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Best regards,
> Platt
>
>
>
> 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 -
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
>
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 -
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 Jan 04 2004 - 16:19:50 GMT