Hi MRB, Yes, a calculus for Quality. I have brought this up several times either as 118 or as my previous AKA of WillBlake2 (which by the way provides my original email address and thus my full name; try Googling that and I don't think you will come up with much unless you use one of those swarmy pay per peek services that will tell you my bank account standing and how many traffic tickets I have). But there did not seem to be much interest outside of my friend Ham in this mathematical approach.
Basically we can use a function: Quality = f(DQ) (unknown function) f(sq) Of course the unknown function is the rub since it is not simple math such as the sum of both of these functions. Quality is not DQ + sq as we know. This is similar to the Tao not being Yin + Yang (let's not forget the "eyes" in each of these dolphins). DQ and sq actually play off each other, creating and destroying kind of like Vishnu. (My favorite Hindu deity is, of course, Kali since what can be more real than that). So we could say: Quality = f(DQ) V f(sq). Of course V can mean many things as presented by Thomas Pynchon in the such titled book. Yes, MoQ is a very complicated calculus, much more than the Schrodinger equation for matter. There are many functions and variables. There is differential and integral calculus involved as well as forms of various geometries, chaos theory, algebra, imaginary and other unusual numbers, infinite sets, and so forth. I have tried to cover these possibilities in previous posts just for fun. All of these are models to provide a handle with which to progress into unknown territory. I recently dropped a mathematical approach in my own private musings since I had what I needed to move on. Language is an equation. When ever we equate with the word "is", that is equivalent to "equals" in math. So when we say that DQ is undefinable, we are defining DQ as undefinable and saying that DQ=undefinable. If we replace "DQ" in Lila with "undefinable" it gets nonsensical. The undefinable follows its own rules of logic which are probably not that difficult. Since I do not agree with such a statement, I have not pursued that. All we do is define DQ in this forum. If it were undefinable, there would be nothing to talk about, only to weasel out of. I much prefer Coyote's use of "future" as DQ since it lends to much more meaningful discussion. So, I agree, MoQ is the calculus of Quality. Somewhat messy, but you know Evolution is somewhat messy as well. Just look at autism. This is evolution in progress. Sooner or later a superior race will rise, and it won't be the monkeys much as I like Planet of the Apes. This will not stop us from putting such people into mental institutions for as long as we can; but in the end we cannot fight evolution. Just sit back and enjoy the ride, it was made specifically for you! All the best, Mark On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 2:22 PM, Michael R. Brown <[email protected]> wrote: > The Apollonian is powerful just like the Dionysian - the logos and alogos > surely interweave all the way down. You have to have form, and you have to > have energy. Individuality and connectedness. So maybe we need a > metaphysical calculus to "define the indefinable"? > > Perhaps that's the MOQ? > > > MRB > http://www.fuguewriter.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/md/archives.html > 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
