[Fis] Book Presentation . . .

[Marcus Abundis]

Dear all,
In viewing this month's posts, I am impressed with the level of and depth
of exchange. I thank Mariusz for initiating this session with a well
written piece, followed with clear responses.
That said, I offer some thoughts in the hope of making a contribution . . .

OVERALL 'dispersed knowledge needs an underlying structure that allows it
to
be organised into a coherent and complex system.'
– Yes, of course. Also, such a system is the essence of Loet, Lin, and
Paul's 2 April post, I think. I was a bit surprised no one mentions it in
any of the later exchanges. Still, I enjoyed seeing your approach while I
also think an innately broader and more reductive  framing is needed . . .
where to date, I only recall serious efforts on from Terry and myself. The
categories put forth each merit discussion, so I can understand putting
this in a book.

CONTRASTS – I sense some reluctance in the group to using 'contrasts' as a
core term, which I tend to agree with. I understand you (Mariusz) feel
differently. Initially, I liked this use of contrasts but the more I read
and reflected, I felt 'contrasts' holds TOO MUCH without allowing adequate
simplifying detail (from an information science perspective). Historically,
contrast has obvious ties to Bateson's 'a difference that makes a
difference' and ties to entropy (Shannon S-entropy, AND Boltzmann
T-entropy). All can be seen as 'types of contrasts' (in addition to
aesthetic contrasts) but they also fail due to their own lack of needed
specificity.

Where my thoughts ended is that a generic sense of entropy (G-entropy)
might be used to suitably frame all cases, using notions of 'adjacency' (S.
Kauffmann) and 'remoteness' (chaos theory) as degrees entropic freedom (as
a universal, whether as signal, thermal, or aesthetic) for a natural
universal/generic continuum. In some ways, Karl's note on using natural
numbers also seemed to head in this 'entropic direction', but by somewhat
different (less universal) means.

DUALISM – not agreeing with Joe's ontic and epistemic split (origination is
innately meaningful, but the reverse is not always true), dualism in some
form is inescapable in the cosmos starting with elementary particles, from
Fermions (matter) and Bosons (force carriers), up the entire cosmic chain.

EMOTIONS – this seemed an especially important topic. One's reaction to an
aesthetic-fit via emotions has many facets. Foremost, I argue Nature
presents all life forms certain innate aesthetic values that we react to in
learning to survive, drawn toward some values and repulsed by others,
imprinting on (or even creating) our pre-cognitive sensibilities. In this
simple direct manner we learn to survive emotionally/aesthetically – those
with poor aesthetic sensibilities become extinct. From that aesthetic core
we find later aesthetic expressions in cave art and the like in an Upper
Paleolithic Revolution.

I think the aesthetic contrasts you have in mind are more recent, but I
would argue the role of emotions remains constant throughout, with emotions
becoming more varied, subtle, and refined with growing life complexity.
Still, that said it was nice to see this topic touched on here.

LACK OF CONTRAST – I did not see this mentioned in your initial note or
later exchanges. Beyond contrasts (and beyond G-entropy adjacency and
remoteness) there is potential for sameness. In chaos theory (if I recall)
I think sameness has a critical role in catastrophic collapse and ensuing
cascading and or/threshold effects. Such cascades would also seem to have
an aesthetic role . . . but I was wondering if you had any thoughts to
share on the nature of sameness.

That's all for now – I enjoyed reading the exchanges.
M!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20220428/aa98db4a/attachment.html>