> > [Krimel] > One could as easily say that possibility is created by actuality. > Actuality > limits even defines possibility. It is not possible in this actuality to > throw oneself at the ground and miss.
DM: The point is you can't have one with out the other, but as for missing the ground you seem to be referring to the impossible, I'm referring to the the possible as the set of all possible patterns. The actual is any one pass through this set. > > [Krimel] > It seems to me that possibility disappears with out time. Without time > nothing is possible. DM:You mean actual that is a subset of the possible I think. Ham seems to be trying to resurrect possibility by > calling it potentiality. He does not seem to regard the possibility of > actualization as a limiting factor. I don't think 'potential' that can > never > be actualized does not and can not matter. DM: What about that hot girl who never went out with you, are you sure it does not matter? Even here without time there is > no potential either. If you want to say the time is potential that would > at > least be interesting. > > There is quite enough room to speculate as to what will actualize. What is > the advantage of leaving the door open to what cannot? DM: When the dice is a six its important that 1-5 went missing to make any sense of the event. Or if you eat all the lemon cake and leave the orange ones in the box. > > [DM] > Is evolution a bridge between the possible and the actual, touching > at certain points (& them moving on), making a certain subset of the > possible actual at any given time and place. > > [Krimel] > Yes, in this way evolution and biology study the very process of > actualization and what constrains possibility in living things. DM: You're getting it. > > [DM] > The 'everything that is possible' sphere never changes, how could it? > There > it sat at the big bang waiting to populate our cosmos, there it sits now > unchanged and nowhere and immaterial, populating the actual with its > current > needs, and accepting the trash patterns that are no longer wanted. Such is > the becoming and begoing of patterns. The source is nothing, vast enough > to > create and absorb any number of universes. > > [Krimel] > Again it seems to me that actualization is always creating and destroying > possibility. DM: Why is it destroyed, more like forsaken, maybe for ever, maybe just for now, emphasize NOW. No account of possibility can ignore actuality. DM: Obviously This line of > thinking seems a bit like Whitehead's process philosophy. DM: It's a ripoff, see elaboration by physicist Shimon Malin in Nature Loves to Hide. As translated into > process theology it holds that what you call possibility and Ham calls > potentiality is God's primordial nature. DM: Just terminology. What we are all calling > actualization is God's consequent nature. Thus God partakes, is directly > involved and changes through his consequent nature. > DM: One way to look at it. > [DM] > Such is DQ, quite incomprehensible as Ham seems to prove on a daily basis. > Is DQ so vast? Well it never seems to fail us and let us down, the DQ just > keeps coming does it not? The awesomeness of DQ is actually something we > can > experience as the inconceivability of our finite cosmos. > > [Krimel] > I would say Quality is to be left as undefined because it is impossible to > specify what will actualize by looking a possibility. DM: What else is prediction and control doing? Are you thinking before you type? Whitehead would say > that actuality occurs as process. Process is the interplay of static and > dynamic qualities. In my philosophy I define it as Shit Happens. Static > Shit > in the dynamic process of happening. DM: If that's the terms you like so be it. Process does gives us good and bad and weird. > > [DM] > Kant's sublime you might say. For me, metaphysics is poetry for those who > really do make an effort to examine and make sense of experience. I don't > like talk of the logic and reason of metaphysics as if we could do without > experience to give us the problems that our metaphysical-poetry is trying > to > express. > > [Krimel] > This would account for your attraction to the descriptions of Lacan and > Zizec. But I think the essence of poetry is brevity. Lots of information > packed into few words. Fog creeping in on little cat's feet. It would seem > then that philosophy is the opposite of poetry if it is the expression of > very simple ideas in very complex language. I like to hope they can be > brought together and I think Pirsig illustrates that they can. DM: I have always admired Pirsig simplification of the complex as his greatest talent, you must realise this started as an attempt to make sense of Ham's post I think. Whitehead would seem a good addition to Pirsig I'd suggest if they could be brought together more. 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/
