Comments on: Novelty http://fractalontology.wordpress.com/2009/04/16/novelty/ refracting theory: politics, cybernetics, philosophy Tue, 29 Dec 2009 01:00:32 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Josh W http://fractalontology.wordpress.com/2009/04/16/novelty/#comment-3023 Josh W Thu, 14 May 2009 13:31:34 +0000 http://fractalontology.wordpress.com/?p=1086#comment-3023 Novelty in my experience requires a lack of gloss. A novel event is one we find ourselves unable to gloss over, so the less we ignore, the more we wonder, the more amazing the world. A dripping tap is distracting, so we switch it off, or we watch it intently with lasers, and discover chaotic attractors! So we may ask what makes some strangeness shout louder, where a quiet detail cuts out all the usual roar. Perhaps sometimes we know where to look, perhaps understanding drains the power from the usual noise. Perhaps it comes in an area where we do not require ourselves to be "busy"! Novelty in my experience requires a lack of gloss. A novel event is one we find ourselves unable to gloss over, so the less we ignore, the more we wonder, the more amazing the world. A dripping tap is distracting, so we switch it off, or we watch it intently with lasers, and discover chaotic attractors!

So we may ask what makes some strangeness shout louder, where a quiet detail cuts out all the usual roar. Perhaps sometimes we know where to look, perhaps understanding drains the power from the usual noise. Perhaps it comes in an area where we do not require ourselves to be “busy”!

]]> By: fallingsilvers http://fractalontology.wordpress.com/2009/04/16/novelty/#comment-2974 fallingsilvers Wed, 22 Apr 2009 20:54:12 +0000 http://fractalontology.wordpress.com/?p=1086#comment-2974 I thought, perhaps, this was kinda appropriate, here: "The smallest differences are blown up and have far-reaching effects. Causality holds at every single instant, but it *does not* carry over a sequence of branchings." so, um, forgive my very uneducated and sloowww bridgen'... & picture~makin'... ok, does it make 'sense' to say a thinking is trying to trace the 'character of amplification' of an 'eventfulness' rather than the 'consequences' of a decision which cannot be predicted? so as not to confuse every of the 'correlations' with 'causality' ? ... or the 'causality' of the 'logic of causality' itself? confused... ...yea, gee, I'm still real new to all this and sorta at the 'frontier of chaos' with all this neat information... but thanks to You and Mr. A, I'm kinda addicted to this place...lol. And how is the 'integrity' of the input/output for every the next instant in which the (non)entities meet at a 'boundary' to be measured?... ...'realized' as an 'exaggerated' iteration? oh, the dimensional drama... & the reprise? ~! :-D woo. I thought, perhaps, this was kinda appropriate, here:
“The smallest differences are blown up and have far-reaching effects. Causality holds at every single instant, but it *does not* carry over a sequence of branchings.”

so, um, forgive my very uneducated and sloowww bridgen’…
& picture~makin’…
ok, does it make ’sense’ to say
a thinking is trying to
trace the ‘character of amplification’
of an ‘eventfulness’
rather than the ‘consequences’ of a decision
which cannot be predicted?
so as not to confuse every of the ‘correlations’
with ‘causality’ ? …
or the ‘causality’ of the ‘logic of causality’ itself? confused…

…yea, gee, I’m still real new to all this
and sorta at the ‘frontier of chaos’
with all this neat information…
but thanks to You and Mr. A, I’m kinda addicted
to this place…lol.

And how is the ‘integrity’ of the input/output
for every the next instant
in which the (non)entities meet at a ‘boundary’
to be measured?…
…’realized’ as an ‘exaggerated’ iteration?

oh, the dimensional drama…
& the reprise? ~! :-D
woo.

]]>