From: Jim Ledbury (jim.ledbury@dsl.pipex.com)
Date: Sun Mar 21 2004 - 10:54:59 GMT
Hi Matt et al.
Matthew Poot wrote:
>Hi All,
>
>Concerning Diversity in the Biosphere,
>
>Jim: I am unsure about the quality of diversity per se.
>
>
Jim Ledbury, Sun 21.Mar.2004:
This was pretty much an "idle musing" on my part. I expanded on it in a
later posting (which you - Matt - saw first) when I talked about optimal
diveristy and analogised and generalised to a massive degree about
'good' diversity and 'bad' diversity (disease).
I'll give a ZAMM quote about a situation which I think fairly well
reflects my reservations about diversity being a form of quality _per se_:
"The result is a kind of endless day-to-day shallowness, a monotony that
leaves a person wondering years later where all the time went and sorry
that it's all gone".... "'What's new?' is an interesting and broadening
eternal question, but one which, if pursued exclusively, results only in
an endless parade of trivia and fashion, the silt of tomorrow" (ZAMM
Chapter 1)
Of course, in the first bit, Pirsig is talking about people's attitude
to saving time, but diversity/options have a kind of inverse relations
ship with time in that trying to overbroaden our options means that we
can't actually spend the requisite time on assessing them properly (i.e.
with sufficient quality).
This is _not_ however to suggest that we should try to limit options to
that which a single person can understand. In this respect the cultural
space of ideas and social activities is very much like the biosphere.
Each species is specialised. Each person must restrict themselves to
knowing a few things well and [that was an 'or' but I changed my mind]
many things only generally. But there comes a point when all ecological
niches are filled. In terms of current scientific thinking, this is
when the biosphere extracts the maximum order out of a system, i.e. it
is using the thermodynamic disequilibrium (gradient) presented to it to
its maximum efficiency. This point is exhibited by a continual
generation and extinction of species. This is optimal diversity. Any
attempt to increase diversity beyond this point just results in some
species becoming unviable, thus dropping out of the ecological balancing
act. This is the sand gradient problem which should be familiar to
anyone with passing familiarity with concepts of self-organisation.
This does not mean to say that further diversity cannot be achieved. If
new ways of exploiting the thermodynamic gradients are found, this may
open up huge new avenues. A classic example of this in the case of the
biosphere was when stromatolites harnessed the power of sunlight-fuelled
reaction involving the then ubiquitous atmospheric carbon dioxide and
water and polluted the atmosphere with a highly reactive toxic gas as a
by-product. It so happened that other cells were able to adapt the
chemical reactions that hitherto powered their activity to use the
thermodynamic gradient provided by this gas (oxygen, in case you hadn't
already guessed) as a replacement - and far better - reactant. I guess
in terms of the human economy we are sort of coming near the point where
we ought to do the same with regard to our fuel of choice. :-)
In terms of ideas and cultural opportunities, we are quite hampered by
our brains' ability to search through the relevant information. I guess
computing is the mechanism by which we can incorporate this new
information gradient in our metabolisms of knowledge. It will also help
us to cut through what is, to us, junk. What we will have to accept is
that much of this searching will be done by mechanisms wholly
unconscious to us - but that's a pricinciple already manifest in the
workings of the brain anyway. A more amusing example of how technology
can augment the biological possibilities of those who would otherwise
find it difficult is detailed here :
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1171861,00.html
Diversification is the mechanism by which a system can exploit all
available niches, so is 'good'. I was not proposing that diversity is
'bad'. Far from it. It's just that we should operate on the "what's
best" principle. This would apply to my attitude to a naive equation
of diversity in scientific endeavour with quality meaning that we should
procede with all kinds of animal experimentation. But in doing so we
should (as MOQ suggests) have a tolerance for "what's new" unless it is
manifestly evident that this is harmful, as it could quite easily turn
out to be "what's best", or a necessary component of it. And that we
should even tolerate the 'coughs and sneezes' type of disease diversity
rather treat them with the same degree of eradication that we would
'cholera and AIDS' types. There are of course caveats to this, as
what appears to be a simple sneeze could in fact be a killer. I suppose
that could go down under a "the price of freedom is eternal
vigilance"kind of maxim.
Matt Poot:
>I think, that the greater the diversity there is in the biosphere, the more
>it increases the potential for humans (and animals I would suppose) to
>interact with DQ , on a more frequent basis, or at a "higher" quality?
>
>
Jim Ledbury, Sun 21.Mar.2004:
In fact, DQ acting at the biological level has solved all sorts of
problems that face us. I heard on the radio (BBC Radio 4, naturally)
this morning about how the packing of new leaves inside buds is of much
interest to space scientists in packing sensitive equipment (especially
that with a large surface area) in transit to unfold at the point of
deployment. I guess the utility of that depends on your attitude to the
utility of the space program, but I think it's covered in terms of
general tolerance to diversification. There is in all probability an
untold wealth of knowldge waiting to inform us in the biosphere that to
destroy it in promotion of the restricted social quality of increased
profit margins constitutes utter insanity, simply taken on utilitarian
grounds. Never mind the less quantifiable mystical grounds of wonder
and beauty which are beneficial to the social and intellectual quality
of human beings.
Matt Poot:
>The reason I think this , is for the following reasons:
>
>We know that there is the 'stuff' before the cutting edge, and then the
>actual conciousness (reality/realisation) in our minds, which leaves a trail
>of static-history.
>
>Now, as we get older, and our static-repertoire (the history of experience
>we draw on) grows , we rely more upon our static-repertoire. Sometimes, as
>in the case of pain, it is instinct to learn from mistakes / accidents. DQ
>still has definite input, constantly.
>
>I think that we conciously (for many variety of reasons) make decisions
>based on this static-repertoire, even if sometimes they seem to be , or are
>'illogical', or not understandable by anyone(or most), but the self. I
>think that everyone makes decisions, that aren't always best for the overall
>development of themself, but it is hard to see this happening, when you are
>the one doing it.
>
>I also think that sometimes, we all make decisions, that sort of turn down
>DQ. It is very hard for me to explain this as it is in my mind, but I will
>try to illustrate it.
>This is not the whole of reality, mind you, but just some idea about
>personal realisation I'm trying to communicate. It is very....broad...and
>misses some things, which I hope we can develop in this thread. Its sort of
>how our decisions affect the coherence in our lives, more specifically, the
>
>Mind: (Judgement/decisions, etc.) Also includes subconsious/pre-intellectual
>awareness.
>Static Repertoire: SQ/History of Experience
>
> /---<---<--<--<-\
> | ^
>DQ==>Mind===Static Repertoire
> ^ ____ / \ __>__>__>_/
>
>
>
>
Jim Ledbury, Sun 21.Mar.2004:
If you don't mind, I have a slight quibble with this diagram. I think
the diagram as a whole should be labelled "mind". It's the process of
feedback between DQ and SQ that is constitutes a mind, do you not feel?
In terms of the human mind, it's the biological, social, intellectual,
ethical repertoire of a person feeding back with the DQ that pertains to
them. The universal mind is the superset of all such processes, and of
course we would have to add the repertoire of physical static patterns
here...
Matt Poot:
>I think that this is one of the ways static patterns affect intelligence in
>humans (and animals I suppose as well). This is because, if we look back
>upon generations of family, there are not only genetic traits passed on, but
>character traits, and values. Like father, like son sort of thing. So, if/
>when these values/traits are imprinted in ones repertoire, than it can be
>very influential in our decision making, either promoting the branching out
>of thoughts, 'lateral drifting', and generally seeking out the diverse, the
>new, the DQ. However, it can, and is vice versa more often than not, I have
>found. I am also "guilty" of this. Inhibition, seems to be a word that
>fits?
>
>
Jim Ledbury, Sun 21.Mar.2004:
Ah well, inhibitions can also be a defence protocol, like hygeine :-) A
Goldilocks principle probably applies...
Matt Poot:
>But, I do analyze what I do, and very often realize the 'traits' that make
>up parts of my personality, which are passed on from my parents (as I'm sure
>the same is for you). There is nothing wrong with this, however, there can
>be values passed on which promote the dependency on static-repertoire, which
>upsets a natural coherence. I can't say what the natural balance is,
>because I don't really think there is one, but I do think that the more one
>relies on the static, the more one becomes static.
>
>
Jim Ledbury, Sun 21.Mar.2004:
This is the "sweet spot" if ever I heard it, achieving the correct
balance between static and dynamic patterns. It is inevitable that one
must compare DQ with SQ. Not to compare what is new with what you
already know is a form of quality suicide. However it's the old
"what's best" with "what's new" quandry. If you come from a good
family, there's a lot of static resources there that are probably worth
maintaining, with the caveat that you should be receptive to new
quality. If you come from an abusive family, then persisting in tribal
loyalties is nuts, but then your ability to make that judgement might
well be impaired.
>Mark: And the more patterns participating in coherence, the more severe
> the coherence - the more evolved it is and therefore closer to DQ.
>
>Me: This is important. The more diversity there is, it basically increases
>the static-repertoire, and in turn, potentially increasing propensity
>towards DQ.
>More 'severe' coherence seems fitting?
>
>
Jim Ledbury, Sun 21.Mar.2004:
In practice there is a limiting factor to diversity. In terms of the
biosphere it's what is energetically possible within the food chains.
In market economics, it's consumer spending power. Intellectually, I
guess it's the ability for the sum total of the human intellect to
process (consume/analyse) the ideas presented to themselves (this is
where increasing our intellectual metabolisms though computational
solutions can help). Disease also takes out what is energetically
possible within the biosphere, and a lot of resources will go into
fighting this junk diversity. Similarly financial resources can be
wasted on complete tat - a deep problem if non-renewble resources are
expended in its manufacture! We have junk science which wastes the time
of people who could otherwise be assessing more worthwhile ideas. In
analogy to the down-side of biological diversification (disease) we've
got to implement hygeine or junk limiting protocols. This is where I
would differ from saying diversity is good per se. But we've got to
be careful in the excercise of these protocols. All too many
intellectuals would willingly erase MOQ for instance.
>This is getting long, so I will let you all have a say. Input is greatly
>appreciated!
>
>
Jim Ledbury, Sun 21.Mar.2004:
Well, MOQ is the new oxygen of the intellect and we should expect a
resultant flowering of theoretical lifeforms.
All the best,
Jim
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 Mar 21 2004 - 11:02:56 GMT