> [gav] > does systems theory privilege the interactions of the > elements within a system over the elements themselves? > > [Krimel] > I make no pretext to expertise in formal systems theory so > I can't really answer that. But from my own perspective > a system is: elements interacting. > In the absence of elements there is nothing to interact. > Without interaction elements are just inert. > Neither could be considered a system.
gav: the point i am getting at is one of priority. the interactions are dynamic, the elements static. are the interactions - the processes - ontologically prior to the elements? if so then there is accord twixt the MOQ and systems theory. [Krimel] You original question was about systems. Here you are just asking about elements and interactions. But the answer is the same. It you have two elements, any two elements, anywhere at any time. Then there co-exists between the two elements some relationship. The elements may be dynamic or static just as the interactions may be static or dynamic. Take the solar system for example. In the solar system the sun and earth are dynamic elements and the interactions between them are relatively static. [gav] how can there be interaction between elements without there first being elements? well this is the pivot point - do we observe directly, empirically, the elements or the interactions? [Krimel] We observe the interaction of elements. [gav] i would say that only process is empirically given; that is we cannot observe a static element. we can only observe immediate flux, and from this flux we can abstract (static) elements - patterns. the flux or process is aesthetically apprehended, the elements are conceptual. [Krimel] Immediate experience is dynamic and continuous. We participate in this flux. The process of abstracting and detecting patterns is conceptualization. The perception of elements and interactions, is both dynamic and continuous. The sense we make of them, conceptually, is what is static. We detect or abstract patterns as static foreground against a dynamic background. [gav] your point about systems requiring both elements and their interactions does not contradict my point above. Dq and sq cannot exist independently of one another (on the relative plane). form and formlessness are polar opposites. each presumes the other. we can never totally or purely experience DQ (except perhaps in madness or death or altered states); the static patterns that make up 'me' are always to a greater or lesser degree influencing perception of the immediate aesthetic flux. [Krimel] I am supposed to be the evil Lord of Science, the drab classic square but Case is a bit of a romantic and he put it this way. Strokes of lightning slash the skies In their flash the darkness dies The fracture lines of time and fate Inscribe the shape of love and hate A coin in spin. Head chasing tails, to see its other side. It fails. When things don't cleave they shatter. All the pieces scatter. Distinctions that should matter blend in gray Facets twitch and twinkle Perspective shifts in every wrinkle Edges that define; dissolve upon a touch In or out's the question. Does it matter much? Each tick Each tock All rhythms Mock Things don't cleave they shatter All the pieces scatter. Distinctions that should matter Turn to gray And yet In every spot of gray We see that white and black Still play But yeah, "Dq and sq cannot exist independently of one another (on the relative plane)." Except, I don't know that the relative plane business matters much. [gav] the crux lies in the privileged ontological status of the dynamic, the unpatterned, the pre-conceptual, this flux. anything we identify *in this flux*, any pattern, is abstracted from it, ie it comes after the experience of the flux. [Krimel] Exactly concepts are derived from and subordinate to perception. [gav] i hope this made some sense [Krimel] I think so but I am seldom a good judge of that. [gav] sartre's 'nausea' deals with this when the author/protagonist, when looking at a tree, sees not a tree but an alien, unique, dynamic flux of perceptions. the category 'tree', he realises, is abstract; the 'real' tree is unique, infinite. [Krimel] That is groovy but not very helpful if one needs a fire for warmth or a tree for Christmas decoration. All those dynamic alien properties are spiffy and all, but the whole point of conceptualization is to dismiss the irrelevant from the relevant in the given moment. The immediate present contains system within systems and if we are to survive from one moment to the next we need to focus on our relationships within those systems. Concepts are filters that we cultivate over time to help us separate what's important from what's not. In this case we are usually scanning for dynamic foreground against a static background. 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/
