From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Mon Jan 05 2004 - 11:58:04 GMT
Hi David M:
I have nothing to add or object to in your analysis, although I'm not sure
I would want to "value whatever is achieved" without referring to some
fairly stringent standards, including "greater freedom" but also including
beauty and other criteria. (Maybe developing a list of such criteria might
prove an interesting exercise.)
> 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.
Applying the following ideas to the question of measuring values at the
higher levels might bear fruit. It would be interesting to attempt a
connection, but my knowledge of the theories in question is totally
lacking.
> Perhaps someone can add some
> ideas from chaos theory and fractals (where incomplete information is
> handled mathematically) to this.
I wonder if anyone reading this who is familiar with these theories would
care to comment?
Thanks for your response,
Best,
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 - 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 : Mon Jan 05 2004 - 11:56:52 GMT