Jonathan B. Marder (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Sun, 30 Aug 1998 17:15:29 +0100
Hi Magnus, Squad,
>> Breaking meta-stable patterns of stagnation can allow more stable
>> patterns to form!
>You seem to have yet another meaning of the meta prefix, please
I didn't invent the wod "metastable", and am not using it in any unusual
context here. From the Oxford English Dictionary:-
"Of a physical system: persisting (in its existing state)
when undisturbed or subject to disturbances smaller
than some small or infinitesimal amount, but passing to
a more stable state when subject to greater disturbances."
>My main point is this though, you said that if a pattern is broken it
>can allow more stable patterns to form. This sounds like somewhere
>down the line you'd find the "most stable pattern" or "maximal
>realisation of potential" which sounds like Plato's good to me.
That view is also pretty much the "winding down of the Universe" idea.
On the one hand, the Universe still has plenty of ways to go yet:-).
However, even on a theoretical level, the possibility of evolving
patterns of ever increasing complexity seems to always offer new paths.
One aspect of "Chaos theory" is that apparent chaos usually means
establishment of order at a higher (more complex) level.
You may notice that the interplay between the settling in of pattern
(SQ) and pattern breaking (DQ) appears as a theme in many of my own
postings, and I suggest that it is the basis of evolution.
>But the MoQ good is not equal to "more stable", it's on the
>contrary more dynamic.
Pirsig clearly identified that paradox, and thus recognised the value of
"static latching". If you are too busy interacting dynamically with each
localised pattern you miss the big picture ... "You can't see the wood
for the trees".
-- homepage - http://www.moq.org/lilasquad unsubscribe/queries - mailto:email@example.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:39 CEST