Hi Tim
I'll try to make it short. Quality is just the start of the real thing.
There are three general simultaneous dichotomies to understand and practice.
I've been into this since in the middle of the 70's when I first read
ZMM. I did a lot of math work at that time but today I am more into
economics and enterprising. My deeper thinking about Quality started
when I read Lila. Anyway, I'm still not satisfied with the whole story
and have got a feeling that there is some more work to do with it. My
daily work is filled with matter of quality, processes and conditions
for survival and betterness. I can clearly see the difference between
romantic trend mongers and greysuited certified accountants.
To start with the first dichotomy; there are things that are and there
are things that are not. Things as just anything conceptable. Something
is commanding the nature of universe and separates the things that are
from the things that are not. "To be or not to be". Actually we cannot
tell what the things that not are, because if we know, then they exist
as concepts in our mind at least. The number zero is the general
mathematic description for anything that is not. 1 is the smallest
integer in that dichotomy. If it's is-ness is true then it is 1
otherwise it is 0. To talk in MD language we can say that if there is a
static pattern for something, then it is. The evidence is the regular
Cartesian "Cogito ergo sum". The universe is filled with such things,
big and small, each one as a lump of being proven by this first
dichotomy: to be or not to be and most of them following the first law
of entropy. I'm not really sure about the amount of real energy in a
joke, but if you can laugh at it, it have be an absolute reality.
Dichotomy nr two is this; Anything that *is* has some kind of possible
pattern separated from the impossible patterns. These patterns that
evoke an Oh shit! instead of an Aha! Why a triangle is made up of three
points and making an area inside. We know that every atom and particle
inside the atoms are moving around so it is to hard to see that anything
you see is just energy in movement and the characteristic movement is
its pattern. Chemists, physicists and dentists know that there are
something that separates possible patterns from impossible patterns.
Like using post-its to fix a waterleakage, low quality, bad dynamic
pattern. Or trying to define a room with only two variables. It is
interesting that the maths that describe area, room, space and movement,
are using the independent maths that describe the amount and mass from
the first dichotomy. They're just completing each other to make the
picture. This is the objective, unbiased class, were we can agree about
the result of the analysis. A rose is a rose is a rose. (G. Stein).
So what's left? Just anything, any event or process have some mass and a
shape of pattern so what? The answer and the third Dicothomy is the
pragmatic one, the one about the value, or what it is worth for Other
things. To be able to look at one single thing we have to isolate it
from the rest. "This" is a name of something isolated from the rest of
the world. The value of this is then compared to to the rest of the
world or at least a part of it. The third dichotomy is the general
conditions that dictate how things are related to each other. How to put
4 elephants into a Volkswagen and like. (2 in the front seat and two in
the back of course). There is universal rules and natural laws that you
never can change and they tell what is possible and not when putting
things together or just trying to find a relation between them. The
pragmatic value and usefulness of anything is absolutely regulated by
this third perpetual force. But as you understand the freedom is total,
the number of possibilities for combinations are infinite. Any view from
one to another is unique and totally subjective. The maths in this class
is about statistics and probabilities. Independent from but still
working with the arithmetics and absolute integers.
This is just the basic outlines of the "tricothomy" that I think must to
be used for just anything regarding it's quality. We can surely discuss
if these three are static patterns also and if the Quality is behind
them too, but I see them as quite static and hard to put aside.
It can be used on MD, motorcycle maintenance or home brewing. Its
impossible to try to think in just one class and try to fit in
everything in just a flat system of concepts. It's hermeneutical,
analytical and pragmatic simultaneously.
Some examples:
MD: Is it to less or to many submissions? Are they right or weird? Are
they interesting or just boring?
Motorcycle: Is the tank filled? Is the machine working? Do you like
driving in the rain?
Home brewing: You need barley malt, hop, yeast and water. Don't add the
hop to early. How about the taste?
Next step is about time and money and that popular stuff but I think
I'll save that for my book.
Jan-Anders
Jan-Anders, hello, I haven't spoken with you yet. I think I can
finally pose an intelligent question. I have excerpted from two of
your recent responses:
>
> [Jan-Anders] Let them all be there together to get a complete picture; real energy,
> objective pattern and subjective value instead of rivalising.
[Jan-Anders] Energy, Pattern and Value. These are the general conditions
that
separates the possible from the impossible, stating that anything is
possible and nothing is impossible, ...
I don't know if you have read many of my posts, but this latter part of
the second excerpt is very similar to comments I have made in a
conversation with Ham. I might tweak it a bit to say, rather: 'nothing'
is meaningless, and so it shouldn't be uttered; something is. Thus,
there is a boundary to something-is, which we can call the impossible;
and then, there is the idea of possible too. But from here I am not
sure where to go. Does the possible open up? How? I have tried to
play the game: what must something-is be like?, but my enthusiasm for
this game wanes real fast. Instead of pursuing that route, which I have
argued should produce a (the) physics if it is done right (if it can be
done rightly), I jump over to a wholly separate position: I am.
Interestingly, whether I am trying to pursue physics or myself, there
are a lot of similarities. And, at this level, I can make an analogy to
math - and I think that I have gathered correctly that you are a math
oriented person. Have you ever tried to derive math? From the start?
In case you haven't, or for those who may read this and want to try, I
don't want to specify much, but 'start' is tough at best. Elsewhere I
have referred to Feynman, where I paraphrase, you have to start in the
middle; even accepting the idea of zero and one is to start in the
middle. Perhaps I have already ruined the fun, but a line segment, how
do you define it? Two end points separated from each other? Two end
points connected to each other? Anyway, the point of the analogy is
that even this humblest beginning, zero and one, implies (at least)
three due to the relationship. So the fact that you reduce to energy,
pattern, and value...
In ZAMM, RMP, for a time, considers the possibility that his Quality
should be in a triune relationship with subjects and objects. Of course
he settles on Quality as primary, and unitary, the source of subjects
and objects.
anyway, I was wondering if you could give a detail by detail account at
how you arrived at energy, pattern, and value - or at least open up your
perspective a bit.
Secondly, regarding your first excerpt above, you use the word
'objective'. I have a personal interest in this word, but it - the
word, not my personal interest in it - is not highly esteemed here. I
was wondering what you mean by 'objective pattern', specifically
'objective'.
Thanks,
Tim
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/md/archives.html
