Ron writes:
"Let me first start out by apologizing for my
intensity."
No need to apologize. Patterns is one of those that
semanticists call 'loaded terms'. Loaded terms
naturally lead to heated discussions and
controversies.
Ron: What I have in my mind has taken on aspects of
preconception.
When my Physics teacher in high school stated after a
lengthy
Discussion about atoms and particles that mass was
stored energy
That it was more accurate to think of subatomic
particles, atoms
And molecules as patterns comprised of whirlpools of
force.
The natural question was what's force? Some theories
state opposing Charge.
Now what that energy is, is unknown and takes on
multifaceted forms
Much like DQ.
Jorge: I am inclined to say that. Energy is not at
all much like DQ. Energy, as opposed to DQ, can be
precisely formulated in terms of mathematical
equations. DQ like Truth or Beauty or Experience, can
not. Would that make me a SOMist? Starting with
Newton's equation for gravitational force, following
with Thermodynamics and ending with the Einstein's
equation you quoted, energy may be mathematically
defined; surely, it is differently for different
fields but, so far, there is no contradiction between
the various definitions.
Energy becomes esoteric and "unknown" only outside
Physics, notably when people goes around selling
stones loaded with 'positive energy' which can
counteract the 'negative energies' of the body.
Ron: I think even Pirsig bridges the concept of
energy Or force that binds, as value, as preference.
And this is where I form my concepts.
Jorge: I find this part of Pirsig's a bit weak. To
say that positively charged particles and negative
ones converge towards each other because they have 'a
preference' for being together rather than separated,
is to use anthropomorphic language which may lead some
to believe that those particles are conscious of how
they are behaving. That sort of language is helpful
sometimes to our understanding; similar to when, in
the Bible, we read that God got angry and lost his
patience; easier to understand the Divinity in
anthropomorphic terms. Problems arise, in my view,
when people start taking seriously these analogies of
'preferences' or 'God's anger' forgetting that it's
just loose language.
Ron: "When Pirsig stated that reality is composed of
patterns of value, every
Last bit. He meant every last bit. This fits in with
what I know about
Physics which isn't extensive, but I like to think I
have halfway Decent familiarity with it. I try to read
up".
Jorge: I seem to recall that we disagreed on this
point before and we keep disagreeing. Physics does not
mention Value at all, except in the context of the
value of x or the value of G in this or that equation;
Pirsig said as much when attacking Science because it
shows little concern for studying values (which
shouldn't be taken to imply that Science is
value-less). Whether value is structured or not into
"patterns of value" is of no concern of Physics.
Hence, I cannot grasp what do you mean when saying
that the notion of "reality being composed of patterns
of value fits in with what I know of Physics".
Something that puzzles me in this and other
discussions here, is what I'd call an ambivalent
attitude towards Science. Ambivalent in the sense of,
on one hand, attacking Science for being too objective
(too 'square') on the other hand borrowing,
selectively, from Science whatever concepts may seem
to fit in. Under the premise that MOQ displaced or
replaced the so-called SOM, why not leave Physics (the
best example of SOM) alone in its corner?
Ron: The best analogy I've come across for how I
conceive of value theory
Is that of a pointillist painting. Or a magazine
photograph, each color
And form is composed of a collection of overlapping
types of dots, 4
types Usually in standard printing process. In a
rosette pattern preferably..
So If I understand your argument you state that
just because forms are
composed of patterns does not make them patterns
themselves.
Jorge: Sort of, but not quite, I said that if a thing
is composed of different patterns that thing is
generally not a pattern. I wouldn't object to calling
a large crystal of calcite a pattern, nor a rock made
up entirely of crystalline quartz. But a rock made of
aggregates of crystals, with irregular gaps of air in
between and some amorphous substance binding the lot
together (which is what most rocks are) can not be
said to be a pattern because of "identical, regular,
arrangements of ions or atoms." Such a rock would be
heterogeneous and heteromorphyc along any axis you
choose to examine.
Ron: To the human mind no, what the mind perceives and
the senses supply
Are distinct and simplified. It reads that collection
of patterns as whole. Even mathematically whole's
only exist as a matter of conceptual convenience.
Jorge: No my mind does not perceive a collection of
patterns as a patterned whole; nor my senses. I
suppose each car or truck engine emits a distinct
sound pattern; When in a traffic congested street my
mind and hearing sense just perceive a ghastly noise.
Ron: Measurement and number would run on forever
unless they are limited and rounded.
Jorge: to which I very much agree.
__________________________________________________________
Sent from Yahoo! Mail - a smarter inbox http://uk.mail.yahoo.com
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
