>>>> Beware, The Agents of Despair...
>
>
>
> The problem here is the dualism, good and evil, or opposite extremes.
> With one extreme being creative, the other destructive.
>
> There is a new mathematics out there, complexity science, that corrects
> this frame of reference error. Nature comes in threes. Morality is
> indeed open to mathematical analysis in the better view.
>
> This frame of reference can easily be seen with the ....new...definitions
> of simplicity and complexity.
>
> Arbitrarily define any real world complex dynamic system.
> Let's say the system is society.
>
> In attractor theory, simple behavior comes in two forms.
> A static attractor is behavior much like spinning a ball
> inside of a bowl. Sooner or later the ball when come to
> rest at the bottom. The system is said to be attracted
> to that final state. Another term for this behavior is
> subcritical. Where behavior tends to become more
> ordered, simpler or predicable over time.
>
> In a society the 'rule of law' would then fill the static attractor.
> As that is the system specific force that competes for
> more order over time.
>
> The opposite extreme would be behavior that is chaotic.
> Or supercritical. As with a gas, or with a society the opposite
> chaotic attractor would be filled by 'freedom'.
>
> Both static and chaotic behavior is deemed to be relatively
> ...simple....behavior. Merely because 'complex' behavior
> is where /both/ static and chaotic behaviors are equally
> represented. So that one can't tell which simple form
> dominates the whole.
>
> So that one can't tell which-is-which.
>
> The third attractor is emergent. As it only forms as a result
> of this unstable dynamic balance of the static and chaotic.
> This new attractor is of course called dynamic or complex
> behavior.
>
> static > dynamic < chaotic
> simple > complex < simple
>
> Analogous to
> solid > fluid < gas
> particle physics > thermodynamics < quantum mechanics
>
> Or for this discussion
>
> order > creation < disorder
> simple > complex < simple
> evil > good < evil
>
> So you see, there are now
>
> ....TWO (Evil) minimums and ONE maximum....Good.
>
> The duality of good and evil is replaced with a frame
> of reference that mimics REALITY. Instead of the
> endless battle between good and evil that has no
> logical winner. Good is when both creation and destruction
> find themselves locked in an unwinnable battle with each other.
>
> So that one can't tell which-is-which.
>
> As with a cloud.
>
> Where the opposite extremes of condensation and evaporation
> find an unstable equilibrium, a dynamic(fluid-like) structure emerges.
> Requiring new vocabulary such as lightning, rain and such.
>
> It is the emergent dynamic attractor that results from
> the struggle between order and disorder that is the
> ULTIMATE SOURCE OF ALL CREATION....
> ...in the known universe.
>
> Whether with the universe as a whole
>
> gravity > space < cosmic expansion
>
> or with Darwinian evolution
>
> genetics > natural selection < mutation
>
>
> There is now a single mathematics that can deal
> with....all the disciplines....with a single language.
>
>
> science > wisdom < philosophy
>
> Or the competition between forces that apply
> to the one, and to everyone.
>
> Truth > Beauty < Love
> knowledge > genius < imagination
>
>
> Good is the union of opposite extremes.
> Evil is when the whole becomes dominated
> by one extreme...or the other.
>
>
> Dynamics of Complex Systems
>
http://necsi.org/publications/dcs/
>
> Self Organizing Faq
>
http://www.calresco.org/sos/sosfaq.htm
>
>
Calresco.org
>
http://www.calresco.org/
>
>
>
I found your post very interesting Jonathan. It reads to me like 'systems
analysis' taken to a more abstract level. My background is econometrics
where the search is for variables atop variables that might be more useful
to 'contain' [much like your cloud of duality] information of lesser
descriptive variables.
Like a coastline, the further away or the more 'macro' the view, the more
eloquently geometric the variables are. But the cloeser one gets to the
'micro' situation, you lose the geometric eloquence to become a chaos of
roller coaster planes with jagged edges that only 'trend' toward the larger
geometric view. I have been highly interested in applying these concepts to
consciousness itself for some time now, attacking from the idea that
conceptual language is the operator of our brain [the Sir's I think would
argue from a lower fundamental of actual neural biochemistry...which I think
is more or less useless except to Frankenstein scientists, ha]. Who knows,
maybe our technology just might design a real 'happy pill' someday..."take
one in the morning and everything will turn out alright" [even if
meaningless].
