Guest guest Posted May 26, 2006 Report Share Posted May 26, 2006 > Bill, please explain your meaning for " strange attractor " . > I have used that term by a very non scientific definition to mean > " unseen influences " like several planets and moons causing another > planet to have an unexplainable orbit, until the other planets and > moons are noticed. > So in a person that would be several influences that are unknown to > the person, that result in his or her dramatizing unexplainable behavior. > Stu Good question. I am using the term " strange attractor " to represent any kind of " stickiness " or " clumping " in a dynamic system. In the case of gravity, an accumulation of material can serve to " draw in " more material, so that the " clumping " continues to grow. In the case of the human organism viewed as a dynamic system, a tendency towards a sense of " center " around which memories aggregate could be a clumping pattern and regarded as a strange attractor. When I wrote: > > what is not let go of is effectively the identity > > > > the " not letting go of " needn't be presumed to be as > > *by* any entity. the strange attractor notion accounts > > for it without postulating an entity... i.e. there > > is a " persistence " ... and that persistence is the > > *appearance of* an entity/identity as-if-behind the > > persistence. my point was that the " center " around which clumping occurs is/can be effectively an identity. Viewed as a dynamic system, such clumping can begin autonomously. There need be no consideration of any " agent " (no reification required!). It is very common for people to want to stick in their " who questions " . So in response to: " what is not let go of is effectively the identity " they might (compulsively) ask, " Who let go of? " as if it were self evident there actually *were* such a who. And such " who questions " are also typically fired off rather triumphantly, as if to say, " Aha! Gotcha! " The point of my remarks was to clarify that there need not be any such " who " at all (in fact there certainly is none!). The phenomena that seem to imply the presence of a " who " in the background are just persistence patterns (clumping patterns) that operate autonomously... i.e. they are strange attractors. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 26, 2006 Report Share Posted May 26, 2006 " pliantheart " <illusyn wrote: > > > Bill, please explain your meaning for " strange attractor " . > > I have used that term by a very non scientific definition to mean > > " unseen influences " like several planets and moons causing another > > planet to have an unexplainable orbit, until the other planets and > > moons are noticed. > > So in a person that would be several influences that are unknown to > > the person, that result in his or her dramatizing unexplainable > behavior. > > > Stu > > Good question. > > I am using the term " strange attractor " to represent any kind of > " stickiness " or " clumping " in a dynamic system. In the case of > gravity, an accumulation of material can serve to " draw in " more > material, so that the " clumping " continues to grow. > > In the case of the human organism viewed as a dynamic system, > a tendency towards a sense of " center " around which memories > aggregate could be a clumping pattern and regarded as a strange > attractor. > > When I wrote: > > > what is not let go of is effectively the identity > > > > > > the " not letting go of " needn't be presumed to be as > > > *by* any entity. the strange attractor notion accounts > > > for it without postulating an entity... i.e. there > > > is a " persistence " ... and that persistence is the > > > *appearance of* an entity/identity as-if-behind the > > > persistence. > > my point was that the " center " around which clumping occurs > is/can be effectively an identity. Viewed as a dynamic system, > such clumping can begin autonomously. There need be no > consideration of any " agent " (no reification required!). > > It is very common for people to want to stick in their " who > questions " . So in response to: > > " what is not let go of is effectively the identity " > > they might (compulsively) ask, " Who let go of? " as if it were > self evident there actually *were* such a who. And such " who > questions " are also typically fired off rather triumphantly, > as if to say, " Aha! Gotcha! " > > The point of my remarks was to clarify that there need not be > any such " who " at all (in fact there certainly is none!). > The phenomena that seem to imply the presence of a " who " in the > background are just persistence patterns (clumping patterns) > that operate autonomously... i.e. they are strange attractors. There is a biologist that coined the word " meme " . The word was than taken up in the field of " mind and spirituality " , to mean a kind of mental and physical contagious virus or half alive parasite, that takes everything from " ideas " to evolutionary changes, and moves it along an intended or willed path or direction. This meme concept is used to explain how political and other social movements can spread like wild fire. Your " clumping attractors " remind me of this " meme " . A wonderful book on the subject is entitled " The MEME Machine " by a woman by the name of... I thing her name is Blackmore. Stu > > Bill > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 26, 2006 Report Share Posted May 26, 2006 Nisargadatta , " stuartkfmn " <stuartkfmn wrote: > > " pliantheart " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > Bill, please explain your meaning for " strange attractor " . > > > I have used that term by a very non scientific definition to mean > > > " unseen influences " like several planets and moons causing another > > > planet to have an unexplainable orbit, until the other planets and > > > moons are noticed. > > > So in a person that would be several influences that are unknown to > > > the person, that result in his or her dramatizing unexplainable > > behavior. > > > > > Stu > > > > Good question. > > > > I am using the term " strange attractor " to represent any kind of > > " stickiness " or " clumping " in a dynamic system. In the case of > > gravity, an accumulation of material can serve to " draw in " more > > material, so that the " clumping " continues to grow. > > > > In the case of the human organism viewed as a dynamic system, > > a tendency towards a sense of " center " around which memories > > aggregate could be a clumping pattern and regarded as a strange > > attractor. > > > > When I wrote: > > > > what is not let go of is effectively the identity > > > > > > > > the " not letting go of " needn't be presumed to be as > > > > *by* any entity. the strange attractor notion accounts > > > > for it without postulating an entity... i.e. there > > > > is a " persistence " ... and that persistence is the > > > > *appearance of* an entity/identity as-if-behind the > > > > persistence. > > > > my point was that the " center " around which clumping occurs > > is/can be effectively an identity. Viewed as a dynamic system, > > such clumping can begin autonomously. There need be no > > consideration of any " agent " (no reification required!). > > > > It is very common for people to want to stick in their " who > > questions " . So in response to: > > > > " what is not let go of is effectively the identity " > > > > they might (compulsively) ask, " Who let go of? " as if it were > > self evident there actually *were* such a who. And such " who > > questions " are also typically fired off rather triumphantly, > > as if to say, " Aha! Gotcha! " > > > > The point of my remarks was to clarify that there need not be > > any such " who " at all (in fact there certainly is none!). > > The phenomena that seem to imply the presence of a " who " in the > > background are just persistence patterns (clumping patterns) > > that operate autonomously... i.e. they are strange attractors. > > There is a biologist that coined the word " meme " . The word was than > taken up in the field of " mind and spirituality " , to mean a kind of > mental and physical contagious virus or half alive parasite, that > takes everything from " ideas " to evolutionary changes, and moves it > along an intended or willed path or direction. I don't know abouot the " intended " or " willed path " part... It seems to me it is just a phenomenon, a tendency, which has an effect on " distributions " (of whatever). But I see no *intent* corresponding to the " tendency " . > This meme concept is > used to explain how political and other social movements can spread > like wild fire. > > Your " clumping attractors " remind me of this " meme " . That association would not have occurred to me, but now you mention it, it is very interesting. I tend to think of " clumping attractors " as spatially localized, as corresponding to a particular region of (whatever kind of) space. But with your analogy it occurs to me that that spatial notion isn't essential to the idea at all. The meme is a kind of attractor, you are quite right! But there is no " regional clumping " involved. Fascinating. > A wonderful book on the subject is entitled " The MEME Machine " by a > woman by the name of... I thing her name is Blackmore. > > Stu " Meme " is an interesting concept... more as an example than in itself though, from my view. I have a book on the topic that I have never become intriqued enough to actually read. It is interesting to look at the behavior of a list like this in terms of these kinds of concepts (memes, but esp. attractors, etc.). A person can arrive or leave the list and the chemistry of the list changes. The dynamics of interaction between various groupings of individuals etc. seems to me to fit the general notion of dynamic or chaotic system. You can't control the behavior of the list, but it is interesting to see what variables do affect the dynamics. Maybe you can't herd a flock of seagulls, but you might be able to lure them to a location for a time by throwing out some bread, or drive them from a location by flying a kite that looks like a hawk, etc. The whole topic of the dynamics of communities I find very interesting. One of the reasons I find this list of interest. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 27, 2006 Report Share Posted May 27, 2006 " pliantheart " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " stuartkfmn " <stuartkfmn@> wrote: > > > > " pliantheart " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > Bill, please explain your meaning for " strange attractor " . > > > > I have used that term by a very non scientific definition to mean > > > > " unseen influences " like several planets and moons causing another > > > > planet to have an unexplainable orbit, until the other planets and > > > > moons are noticed. > > > > So in a person that would be several influences that are unknown to > > > > the person, that result in his or her dramatizing unexplainable > > > behavior. > > > > > > > Stu > > > > > > Good question. > > > > > > I am using the term " strange attractor " to represent any kind of > > > " stickiness " or " clumping " in a dynamic system. In the case of > > > gravity, an accumulation of material can serve to " draw in " more > > > material, so that the " clumping " continues to grow. > > > > > > In the case of the human organism viewed as a dynamic system, > > > a tendency towards a sense of " center " around which memories > > > aggregate could be a clumping pattern and regarded as a strange > > > attractor. > > > > > > When I wrote: > > > > > what is not let go of is effectively the identity > > > > > > > > > > the " not letting go of " needn't be presumed to be as > > > > > *by* any entity. the strange attractor notion accounts > > > > > for it without postulating an entity... i.e. there > > > > > is a " persistence " ... and that persistence is the > > > > > *appearance of* an entity/identity as-if-behind the > > > > > persistence. > > > > > > my point was that the " center " around which clumping occurs > > > is/can be effectively an identity. Viewed as a dynamic system, > > > such clumping can begin autonomously. There need be no > > > consideration of any " agent " (no reification required!). > > > > > > It is very common for people to want to stick in their " who > > > questions " . So in response to: > > > > > > " what is not let go of is effectively the identity " > > > > > > they might (compulsively) ask, " Who let go of? " as if it were > > > self evident there actually *were* such a who. And such " who > > > questions " are also typically fired off rather triumphantly, > > > as if to say, " Aha! Gotcha! " > > > > > > The point of my remarks was to clarify that there need not be > > > any such " who " at all (in fact there certainly is none!). > > > The phenomena that seem to imply the presence of a " who " in the > > > background are just persistence patterns (clumping patterns) > > > that operate autonomously... i.e. they are strange attractors. > > > > There is a biologist that coined the word " meme " . The word was than > > taken up in the field of " mind and spirituality " , to mean a kind of > > mental and physical contagious virus or half alive parasite, that > > takes everything from " ideas " to evolutionary changes, and moves it > > along an intended or willed path or direction. > > I don't know abouot the " intended " or " willed path " part... > > It seems to me it is just a phenomenon, a tendency, which has an > effect on " distributions " (of whatever). But I see no *intent* > corresponding to the " tendency " . > > > This meme concept is > > used to explain how political and other social movements can spread > > like wild fire. > > > > Your " clumping attractors " remind me of this " meme " . > > That association would not have occurred to me, but now you > mention it, it is very interesting. > > I tend to think of " clumping attractors " as spatially localized, > as corresponding to a particular region of (whatever kind of) > space. But with your analogy it occurs to me that that spatial > notion isn't essential to the idea at all. The meme is a kind of > attractor, you are quite right! But there is no " regional clumping " > involved. > > Fascinating. > > > > A wonderful book on the subject is entitled " The MEME Machine " by a > > woman by the name of... I thing her name is Blackmore. > > > > Stu > > " Meme " is an interesting concept... more as an example than in itself > though, from my view. I have a book on the topic that I have never > become intriqued enough to actually read. > > It is interesting to look at the behavior of a list like this in > terms of these kinds of concepts (memes, but esp. attractors, etc.). > A person can arrive or leave the list and the chemistry of the list > changes. The dynamics of interaction between various groupings of > individuals etc. seems to me to fit the general notion of dynamic > or chaotic system. You can't control the behavior of the list, > but it is interesting to see what variables do affect the dynamics. > Maybe you can't herd a flock of seagulls, but you might be able to > lure them to a location for a time by throwing out some bread, or > drive them from a location by flying a kite that looks like a hawk, > etc. The whole topic of the dynamics of communities I find very > interesting. One of the reasons I find this list of interest. > > Bill > I am not totally clear yet on how memes and strange attractors compare to each other or fit together yet, but it is fascinating :-) Regarding your last paragraph, I feel that a new addition to a group brings with him or her something like a contagious viewpoint, or flavor, or disease of varying degrees of intensity. The group as a morphic field is as you say, changed. Stu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 27, 2006 Report Share Posted May 27, 2006 In a message dated 5/27/2006 4:46:39 PM Pacific Daylight Time, illusyn writes: > a way I can see it is that the new individual adds a new dimension to > the " morphic field " ... > > some do that in a very powerful way, others less so... > but a new fold in the " list spaces " emerges > and the threads of connection between the many > comments can now reflect that new dimension as well... > > in a way the many dimensions to the list space serve as " hidden > orders " by which the material in the list can be seen, can be > " gestalted " into meaningful moments of " local order " . > > the material is constantly clumping in new ways... and a new > dimension adds a new axis to that > > Bill > > L.E: I suppose the same can be said for all lists and all groups, > communities and organizations. Yet there can be rules, borders, boundaries, > limitations that restrict the form that ' " clumping: " can take. As a clump moves > beyond its own beginnings, more and more accodation to surrounding environments > and competing clumps takes place. Eventually you get rules, laws, police and > the military, even on the level of viruses and bacteria. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 28, 2006 Report Share Posted May 28, 2006 On 5/27/06, stuartkfmn <stuartkfmn wrote: > " pliantheart " <illusyn wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " stuartkfmn " <stuartkfmn@> wrote: > > > > > > " pliantheart " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Bill, please explain your meaning for " strange attractor " . > > > > > I have used that term by a very non scientific definition to mean > > > > > " unseen influences " like several planets and moons causing another > > > > > planet to have an unexplainable orbit, until the other planets and > > > > > moons are noticed. > > > > > So in a person that would be several influences that are > unknown to > > > > > the person, that result in his or her dramatizing unexplainable > > > > behavior. > > > > > > > > > Stu > > > > > > > > Good question. > > > > > > > > I am using the term " strange attractor " to represent any kind of > > > > " stickiness " or " clumping " in a dynamic system. In the case of > > > > gravity, an accumulation of material can serve to " draw in " more > > > > material, so that the " clumping " continues to grow. > > > > > > > > In the case of the human organism viewed as a dynamic system, > > > > a tendency towards a sense of " center " around which memories > > > > aggregate could be a clumping pattern and regarded as a strange > > > > attractor. > > > > > > > > When I wrote: > > > > > > what is not let go of is effectively the identity > > > > > > > > > > > > the " not letting go of " needn't be presumed to be as > > > > > > *by* any entity. the strange attractor notion accounts > > > > > > for it without postulating an entity... i.e. there > > > > > > is a " persistence " ... and that persistence is the > > > > > > *appearance of* an entity/identity as-if-behind the > > > > > > persistence. > > > > > > > > my point was that the " center " around which clumping occurs > > > > is/can be effectively an identity. Viewed as a dynamic system, > > > > such clumping can begin autonomously. There need be no > > > > consideration of any " agent " (no reification required!). > > > > > > > > It is very common for people to want to stick in their " who > > > > questions " . So in response to: > > > > > > > > " what is not let go of is effectively the identity " > > > > > > > > they might (compulsively) ask, " Who let go of? " as if it were > > > > self evident there actually *were* such a who. And such " who > > > > questions " are also typically fired off rather triumphantly, > > > > as if to say, " Aha! Gotcha! " > > > > > > > > The point of my remarks was to clarify that there need not be > > > > any such " who " at all (in fact there certainly is none!). > > > > The phenomena that seem to imply the presence of a " who " in the > > > > background are just persistence patterns (clumping patterns) > > > > that operate autonomously... i.e. they are strange attractors. > > > > > > There is a biologist that coined the word " meme " . The word was than > > > taken up in the field of " mind and spirituality " , to mean a kind of > > > mental and physical contagious virus or half alive parasite, that > > > takes everything from " ideas " to evolutionary changes, and moves it > > > along an intended or willed path or direction. > > > > I don't know abouot the " intended " or " willed path " part... > > > > It seems to me it is just a phenomenon, a tendency, which has an > > effect on " distributions " (of whatever). But I see no *intent* > > corresponding to the " tendency " . > > > > > This meme concept is > > > used to explain how political and other social movements can spread > > > like wild fire. > > > > > > Your " clumping attractors " remind me of this " meme " . > > > > That association would not have occurred to me, but now you > > mention it, it is very interesting. > > > > I tend to think of " clumping attractors " as spatially localized, > > as corresponding to a particular region of (whatever kind of) > > space. But with your analogy it occurs to me that that spatial > > notion isn't essential to the idea at all. The meme is a kind of > > attractor, you are quite right! But there is no " regional clumping " > > involved. > > > > Fascinating. > > > > > > > A wonderful book on the subject is entitled " The MEME Machine " by a > > > woman by the name of... I thing her name is Blackmore. > > > > > > Stu > > > > " Meme " is an interesting concept... more as an example than in itself > > though, from my view. I have a book on the topic that I have never > > become intriqued enough to actually read. > > > > It is interesting to look at the behavior of a list like this in > > terms of these kinds of concepts (memes, but esp. attractors, etc.). > > A person can arrive or leave the list and the chemistry of the list > > changes. The dynamics of interaction between various groupings of > > individuals etc. seems to me to fit the general notion of dynamic > > or chaotic system. You can't control the behavior of the list, > > but it is interesting to see what variables do affect the dynamics. > > Maybe you can't herd a flock of seagulls, but you might be able to > > lure them to a location for a time by throwing out some bread, or > > drive them from a location by flying a kite that looks like a hawk, > > etc. The whole topic of the dynamics of communities I find very > > interesting. One of the reasons I find this list of interest. > > > > Bill > > > > I am not totally clear yet on how memes and strange attractors compare > to each other or fit together yet, but it is fascinating :-) > > Regarding your last paragraph, I feel that a new addition to a group > brings with him or her something like a contagious viewpoint, or > flavor, or disease of varying degrees of intensity. The group as a > morphic field is as you say, changed. > > Stu well said a way I can see it is that the new individual adds a new dimension to the " morphic field " ... some do that in a very powerful way, others less so... but a new fold in the " list spaces " emerges and the threads of connection between the many comments can now reflect that new dimension as well... in a way the many dimensions to the list space serve as " hidden orders " by which the material in the list can be seen, can be " gestalted " into meaningful moments of " local order " . the material is constantly clumping in new ways... and a new dimension adds a new axis to that Bill Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 28, 2006 Report Share Posted May 28, 2006 " Bill Rishel " <illusyn wrote: > > On 5/27/06, stuartkfmn <stuartkfmn wrote: > > " pliantheart " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " stuartkfmn " <stuartkfmn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > " pliantheart " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Bill, please explain your meaning for " strange attractor " . > > > > > > I have used that term by a very non scientific definition to mean > > > > > > " unseen influences " like several planets and moons causing another > > > > > > planet to have an unexplainable orbit, until the other planets and > > > > > > moons are noticed. > > > > > > So in a person that would be several influences that are > > unknown to > > > > > > the person, that result in his or her dramatizing unexplainable > > > > > behavior. > > > > > > > > > > > Stu > > > > > > > > > > Good question. > > > > > > > > > > I am using the term " strange attractor " to represent any kind of > > > > > " stickiness " or " clumping " in a dynamic system. In the case of > > > > > gravity, an accumulation of material can serve to " draw in " more > > > > > material, so that the " clumping " continues to grow. > > > > > > > > > > In the case of the human organism viewed as a dynamic system, > > > > > a tendency towards a sense of " center " around which memories > > > > > aggregate could be a clumping pattern and regarded as a strange > > > > > attractor. > > > > > > > > > > When I wrote: > > > > > > > what is not let go of is effectively the identity > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the " not letting go of " needn't be presumed to be as > > > > > > > *by* any entity. the strange attractor notion accounts > > > > > > > for it without postulating an entity... i.e. there > > > > > > > is a " persistence " ... and that persistence is the > > > > > > > *appearance of* an entity/identity as-if-behind the > > > > > > > persistence. > > > > > > > > > > my point was that the " center " around which clumping occurs > > > > > is/can be effectively an identity. Viewed as a dynamic system, > > > > > such clumping can begin autonomously. There need be no > > > > > consideration of any " agent " (no reification required!). > > > > > > > > > > It is very common for people to want to stick in their " who > > > > > questions " . So in response to: > > > > > > > > > > " what is not let go of is effectively the identity " > > > > > > > > > > they might (compulsively) ask, " Who let go of? " as if it were > > > > > self evident there actually *were* such a who. And such " who > > > > > questions " are also typically fired off rather triumphantly, > > > > > as if to say, " Aha! Gotcha! " > > > > > > > > > > The point of my remarks was to clarify that there need not be > > > > > any such " who " at all (in fact there certainly is none!). > > > > > The phenomena that seem to imply the presence of a " who " in the > > > > > background are just persistence patterns (clumping patterns) > > > > > that operate autonomously... i.e. they are strange attractors. > > > > > > > > There is a biologist that coined the word " meme " . The word was than > > > > taken up in the field of " mind and spirituality " , to mean a kind of > > > > mental and physical contagious virus or half alive parasite, that > > > > takes everything from " ideas " to evolutionary changes, and moves it > > > > along an intended or willed path or direction. > > > > > > I don't know abouot the " intended " or " willed path " part... > > > > > > It seems to me it is just a phenomenon, a tendency, which has an > > > effect on " distributions " (of whatever). But I see no *intent* > > > corresponding to the " tendency " . > > > > > > > This meme concept is > > > > used to explain how political and other social movements can spread > > > > like wild fire. > > > > > > > > Your " clumping attractors " remind me of this " meme " . > > > > > > That association would not have occurred to me, but now you > > > mention it, it is very interesting. > > > > > > I tend to think of " clumping attractors " as spatially localized, > > > as corresponding to a particular region of (whatever kind of) > > > space. But with your analogy it occurs to me that that spatial > > > notion isn't essential to the idea at all. The meme is a kind of > > > attractor, you are quite right! But there is no " regional clumping " > > > involved. > > > > > > Fascinating. > > > > > > > > > > A wonderful book on the subject is entitled " The MEME Machine " by a > > > > woman by the name of... I thing her name is Blackmore. > > > > > > > > Stu > > > > > > " Meme " is an interesting concept... more as an example than in itself > > > though, from my view. I have a book on the topic that I have never > > > become intriqued enough to actually read. > > > > > > It is interesting to look at the behavior of a list like this in > > > terms of these kinds of concepts (memes, but esp. attractors, etc.). > > > A person can arrive or leave the list and the chemistry of the list > > > changes. The dynamics of interaction between various groupings of > > > individuals etc. seems to me to fit the general notion of dynamic > > > or chaotic system. You can't control the behavior of the list, > > > but it is interesting to see what variables do affect the dynamics. > > > Maybe you can't herd a flock of seagulls, but you might be able to > > > lure them to a location for a time by throwing out some bread, or > > > drive them from a location by flying a kite that looks like a hawk, > > > etc. The whole topic of the dynamics of communities I find very > > > interesting. One of the reasons I find this list of interest. > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > I am not totally clear yet on how memes and strange attractors compare > > to each other or fit together yet, but it is fascinating :-) > > > > Regarding your last paragraph, I feel that a new addition to a group > > brings with him or her something like a contagious viewpoint, or > > flavor, or disease of varying degrees of intensity. The group as a > > morphic field is as you say, changed. > > > > Stu > > well said > > a way I can see it is that the new individual adds a new dimension to > the " morphic field " ... > > some do that in a very powerful way, others less so... > but a new fold in the " list spaces " emerges > and the threads of connection between the many > comments can now reflect that new dimension as well... > > in a way the many dimensions to the list space serve as " hidden > orders " by which the material in the list can be seen, can be > " gestalted " into meaningful moments of " local order " . > > the material is constantly clumping in new ways... and a new > dimension adds a new axis to that > > Bill > Very interesting!:-) And the new folds result in new agreements and new upsets over disagreements. So the thing that is common to all of these folds or dimensions is agreement and disagreement. Agreement and disagreement seems to be more basic to any morphic field than possibly anything else!?:-) Maybe affinities and disaffinities are what causes the clumping... Stu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 28, 2006 Report Share Posted May 28, 2006 Nisargadatta , " stuartkfmn " <stuartkfmn wrote: > > " Bill Rishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > On 5/27/06, stuartkfmn <stuartkfmn@> wrote: > > > " pliantheart " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " stuartkfmn " <stuartkfmn@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > " pliantheart " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill, please explain your meaning for " strange attractor " . > > > > > > > I have used that term by a very non scientific definition > to mean > > > > > > > " unseen influences " like several planets and moons causing > another > > > > > > > planet to have an unexplainable orbit, until the other > planets and > > > > > > > moons are noticed. > > > > > > > So in a person that would be several influences that are > > > unknown to > > > > > > > the person, that result in his or her dramatizing > unexplainable > > > > > > behavior. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Stu > > > > > > > > > > > > Good question. > > > > > > > > > > > > I am using the term " strange attractor " to represent any kind of > > > > > > " stickiness " or " clumping " in a dynamic system. In the case of > > > > > > gravity, an accumulation of material can serve to " draw in " more > > > > > > material, so that the " clumping " continues to grow. > > > > > > > > > > > > In the case of the human organism viewed as a dynamic system, > > > > > > a tendency towards a sense of " center " around which memories > > > > > > aggregate could be a clumping pattern and regarded as a strange > > > > > > attractor. > > > > > > > > > > > > When I wrote: > > > > > > > > what is not let go of is effectively the identity > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the " not letting go of " needn't be presumed to be as > > > > > > > > *by* any entity. the strange attractor notion accounts > > > > > > > > for it without postulating an entity... i.e. there > > > > > > > > is a " persistence " ... and that persistence is the > > > > > > > > *appearance of* an entity/identity as-if-behind the > > > > > > > > persistence. > > > > > > > > > > > > my point was that the " center " around which clumping occurs > > > > > > is/can be effectively an identity. Viewed as a dynamic system, > > > > > > such clumping can begin autonomously. There need be no > > > > > > consideration of any " agent " (no reification required!). > > > > > > > > > > > > It is very common for people to want to stick in their " who > > > > > > questions " . So in response to: > > > > > > > > > > > > " what is not let go of is effectively the identity " > > > > > > > > > > > > they might (compulsively) ask, " Who let go of? " as if it were > > > > > > self evident there actually *were* such a who. And such " who > > > > > > questions " are also typically fired off rather triumphantly, > > > > > > as if to say, " Aha! Gotcha! " > > > > > > > > > > > > The point of my remarks was to clarify that there need not be > > > > > > any such " who " at all (in fact there certainly is none!). > > > > > > The phenomena that seem to imply the presence of a " who " in the > > > > > > background are just persistence patterns (clumping patterns) > > > > > > that operate autonomously... i.e. they are strange attractors. > > > > > > > > > > There is a biologist that coined the word " meme " . The word > was than > > > > > taken up in the field of " mind and spirituality " , to mean a > kind of > > > > > mental and physical contagious virus or half alive parasite, that > > > > > takes everything from " ideas " to evolutionary changes, and > moves it > > > > > along an intended or willed path or direction. > > > > > > > > I don't know abouot the " intended " or " willed path " part... > > > > > > > > It seems to me it is just a phenomenon, a tendency, which has an > > > > effect on " distributions " (of whatever). But I see no *intent* > > > > corresponding to the " tendency " . > > > > > > > > > This meme concept is > > > > > used to explain how political and other social movements can > spread > > > > > like wild fire. > > > > > > > > > > Your " clumping attractors " remind me of this " meme " . > > > > > > > > That association would not have occurred to me, but now you > > > > mention it, it is very interesting. > > > > > > > > I tend to think of " clumping attractors " as spatially localized, > > > > as corresponding to a particular region of (whatever kind of) > > > > space. But with your analogy it occurs to me that that spatial > > > > notion isn't essential to the idea at all. The meme is a kind of > > > > attractor, you are quite right! But there is no " regional clumping " > > > > involved. > > > > > > > > Fascinating. > > > > > > > > > > > > > A wonderful book on the subject is entitled " The MEME Machine " > by a > > > > > woman by the name of... I thing her name is Blackmore. > > > > > > > > > > Stu > > > > > > > > " Meme " is an interesting concept... more as an example than in > itself > > > > though, from my view. I have a book on the topic that I have never > > > > become intriqued enough to actually read. > > > > > > > > It is interesting to look at the behavior of a list like this in > > > > terms of these kinds of concepts (memes, but esp. attractors, etc.). > > > > A person can arrive or leave the list and the chemistry of the list > > > > changes. The dynamics of interaction between various groupings of > > > > individuals etc. seems to me to fit the general notion of dynamic > > > > or chaotic system. You can't control the behavior of the list, > > > > but it is interesting to see what variables do affect the dynamics. > > > > Maybe you can't herd a flock of seagulls, but you might be able to > > > > lure them to a location for a time by throwing out some bread, or > > > > drive them from a location by flying a kite that looks like a hawk, > > > > etc. The whole topic of the dynamics of communities I find very > > > > interesting. One of the reasons I find this list of interest. > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > I am not totally clear yet on how memes and strange attractors compare > > > to each other or fit together yet, but it is fascinating :-) > > > > > > Regarding your last paragraph, I feel that a new addition to a group > > > brings with him or her something like a contagious viewpoint, or > > > flavor, or disease of varying degrees of intensity. The group as a > > > morphic field is as you say, changed. > > > > > > Stu > > > > well said > > > > a way I can see it is that the new individual adds a new dimension to > > the " morphic field " ... > > > > some do that in a very powerful way, others less so... > > but a new fold in the " list spaces " emerges > > and the threads of connection between the many > > comments can now reflect that new dimension as well... > > > > in a way the many dimensions to the list space serve as " hidden > > orders " by which the material in the list can be seen, can be > > " gestalted " into meaningful moments of " local order " . > > > > the material is constantly clumping in new ways... and a new > > dimension adds a new axis to that > > > > Bill > > > > Very interesting!:-) > > And the new folds result in new agreements and new upsets over > disagreements. Ha!! Stu, you are fun! [and a definite New Dimension here as far as I am concerned ] that is just fabulous: new agreements new upsets over disagreements also, playing on the term " folds " here... a new member comes " into the fold " ... > So the thing that is common to all of these folds or dimensions is > agreement and disagreement. > Agreement and disagreement seems to be more basic to any morphic field > than possibly anything else!?:-) agreement/disagreement would pertain to " semantic fields " (such as memes inhabit). > Maybe affinities and disaffinities are what causes the clumping... affinities/disaffinities more general than agreements/disagreements and apply to a larger class of fields. > Stu > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 29, 2006 Report Share Posted May 29, 2006 In a message dated 5/28/2006 10:18:59 AM Pacific Daylight Time, stuartkfmn writes: > the material is constantly clumping in new ways... and a new > >dimension adds a new axis to that > > > >Bill > > > > Very interesting!:-) > > And the new folds result in new agreements and new upsets over > disagreements. > So the thing that is common to all of these folds or dimensions is > agreement and disagreement. > Agreement and disagreement seems to be more basic to any morphic field > than possibly anything else!?:-) > Maybe affinities and disaffinities are what causes the clumping... > > Stu > L.E: Speaking of clumping. Did you ever consider or wonder how separate clumps of material formed out of a ball of hot gaseous, cooling material floating in space? The earth sphere must have been homogeneous as a glob of dust turned into hot gooey stuff, so where did the gold, silver, iron ore, etc, come from? They must have clumped out, each small particle attracted to each other as they floated around while the mass was cooling. Even now, I suppose, that separate minerals must only exist as intrinsic to the thin crust material as down below, everything is still homogeneous hot molten material. And if at the center of the earth there is a mass of hot nickel as nuclear fuel, how did that occur? Why is there a solid down in the center of liquid rock? Seems like strange clumping. But then this is a subject to solid for most of us to consider, after all, this list is not about geology. I mean, is there any relationship between the planet earth and the creatures that live on it? Or between environment and enlightenment? Or between the beyond and the right here? Larry Epston www.epston.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.