Q U A L I T Y of life. A post-Newtonian view.

She is surrounded by secrets: QUALITY.

---

Nobody can really say what she is. Yet everybody knows. No one can give a definition of her crystal clear. As soon as you think you have her, she leaves you. You only have her at certain times and if you always had her, she wouldn't be her... she was something else...

^{Peggy Greb, USDA - This image was released by the Agricultural Research Service, the research agency of the United States Department of Agriculture, with the ID K10474-1 (next)., wikimedia commons}

Here you can find out the five secret clues about her. ... And her brother.

Get ready.

One: You can't explain quality front-on.

You can only try to grasp her by detours.

Two: Quality hits you by surprise

Before she met you, you didn't know what she felt like.

Three: Quality not your own is an idiot.

After followed all the rules of art, you meet someone who still doesn't get her. Then you know: Your quality is not the same as the quality of someone else.

Four: Quality is ephemeral.

You can't hold on to her too long. You must let her go. To do that let her rest and neither look at nor use her.

Five: Quality can be a clone

Most of the time, however, she is an original.

---

Now, to the brother, QUANTITY:

One: Quantity explains himself.

You can marry him with any number. He always has a unit of measurement for you. Whether for force, capital, distance, time, speed, weight, density, hardness, softness, permeability, strength, whatever you want.

Two: Quantity is abused.

He's being exploited to explain his sister, the quality. Which is because his sister is like fog. Still no reason doing that (!).

Three: Quantity is catchy.

And frugal. You just have to be with him long enough. Then the boredom passes and the fascination begins.

Four: Quantity is not a bit mysterious.

Although some try to mystify him (I-Ying). Which they succeed in doing.

Five: Quantity is not corruptible

You cannot make a twenty foot tree into a ten foot tree. But (!) his use is susceptible to corruption.

Can facts express feels? And can feels express facts?

Quality says: I feel it. Quantity says: I measure it.

It's not forbidden to combine the two, isn't it? And that's what we all of course do.

Though that is not a very elegant way to do so.

What are nouns?

My way of approaching a term is usually that I first consider and reflect my own form of definition and understanding. Then do I look for a general as well as a variety of more specific definitions. Basically, I am faced with a single term, which is a noun: I see nouns as a linguistic consensus when I am dealing with them on the road in everyday life. However, a noun does not describe a single thing, it is a shortcut, a consensus definition of an actual process. Whether I'm looking at a "table" or a "candle". Both are consensus nouns that I use in my language to make people understand me. But neither of these are things in themselves, they are processing matter. A "table" is not a table but it " tables". A candle is not a candle but it "candles".

What I see is just the current manifestation where I and the table appear in a certain shape and form within timespace.

life is not a simple substance nor a matter body only. It manifests itself as a process or as a system of very complex hierarchical structures with specific dynamics, diversity of functions, and interrelations with their surroundings

https://www.biogeosciences.net/3/281/2006/bg-3-281-2006.pdf

That may give an explanation why some organ transplantations are successful and others are not. One patient rejects a liver and the other doesn't. Perhaps because order or disorder (chaos) cannot be determined in the phase of transition?

Through this subjective approach to understanding my world I discover something: That each of us unfold their understanding quite differently. So before I let myself be influenced by a definition, I check where I stand with my view. It may be "wrong" if it does not generate enough consensus. But that doesn't mean it is wrong. Because in time and space it could become right.

I am simply saying that every single point of view is basically correct. From my liveliness's point of view, everything is always right, as I explain it to myself. Until I am convinced that there is a better explanation and I want to follow it. Which requires open gates to my thinking processes.

Of course, I always come across non-own forms of definitions that then influence my "own" and so I move in feedback loops as a particle wich feeds and is being fed.

... complex systems lie somewhere in the continuum between order (like ice crystals and carbon Buckminsterfullerenes) and chaos (like molecules in a gas): organisms and brains are complex, but neither wholly ordered nor wholly disordered.

https://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/SPT/v4n1/pdf/MAINZER.PDF

This does not correspond very well to my real linear experience in daily life. Because there I do one task at a time. The fact that my mind is so different and can move in abstract space is sometimes quite confusing.

My approach towards "Quality" and "Quantity" is a subjective mixture of all what I have perceived, believed and experienced and of what I do in the more recent time of my life. On another day I might have given a total different entrance to them. It is also driven by my mood and time available. My definition is also colored by what I want to be seen as a definition. You may say that that is irrelevant because my subjective wants corrupt objective facts. Depends, though. If my subjectivity meets enough consensus things change ...

Recently I was on @vieira 's blog and read his article Is the World Quantifiable? In the comment section I participated in the debate and also read Vieras answers on other commentators. I quote him:

if objectivity starts from the fact that objects necessarily have inherent qualities, and these qualities are ideal, the proper research method to discover these qualities would be the qualitative one, and not the quantitative one.

I don't start from the basis that reality is ideal, and neither material, I start precisely that both together form reality, which although conceptualized as two, for educational purposes, are not really two separate or independent entities.

That's what I just did. I separated the two for the purpose of giving a (my) message. I would like to add in order to do a qualitative research you have to map things. Would a mapping change the attitude to measure?

To discover the quality of an object: What would you say, from where do you start your discovery?

Let's take a tree to get this experiment started.

First you need a subject which studies the object, right? That would be you.
Now think about a tree. Take the first image of tree which comes to your mind.
Start to associate the ideal qualities of this tree.

I will provide you with my own qualitative associations. If you don't want to be influenced by my associations, skip the next paragraph. Write down what you came up with.

My tree provides a cool shade in midsummer and protects me from the scorching sun with its canopy of leaves.
The tree carries lush green leaves, which shine differently in the light and cast patterns on the earth. The play of light of the crown is like a work of art and motivates the painter in me. The tree is a habitat for many animals, such as birds and insects and grazing four-toed animals. Mushrooms grow at its bottom and small animals gather in the rotting foliage. The tree absorbs carbon monoxide and provides oxygen. It grows as long as its natural growth process allows it to. When it stands in a large group of trees, it communicates with other trees and sends out signals when pests attack it or protects itself with its special tree sap. The tree supplies me with wood so that I can build something out of it or use its branches to make a fire. Trees altogether - among other living systems - make life on earth possible

As you can see, I have worked almost exclusively on qualitative aspects of a tree in my associations. What's the matter with you? What qualities did you associate with your tree?

What if you were to list the quantitative aspects of the tree? Could you separate them cleanly?

If we proceed, we eventually look up the definition of tree. I'm doing that now. Besides the definition I read something about the distribution of trees, their development, their characteristics, their physiology and their ecology. Later the meaning of the tree for us humans is mentioned. I used wikipedia as a source.

I deduce from that:
The object "tree" has qualitative as well as quantitative characteristics or is occupied with such. There is a lot of consensus already to be found.

Our consumer age, however, concentrates to a high degree on the quantifiability of objects and has isolated the two attributes "quality" and "quantity" from each other. Like a bad actor who confuses volume with presence on stage and believes that high decibels obscures mediocre performance, we too develop products that look like quality but are not quality. We buy cheap and we sell even cheaper. But there is also a saying: Cheap is coming expensive.

Short excursion to Parisian copy-clerks

In this context I searched for examples not only materially but also intellectually related. So I thought about the above amateurism of an actor. At the bottom of the German Wiki it says: "Examples of the amateur as a motif in literature are the two title characters in Bouvard and Pécuchet by Gustave Flaubert". Amateurism in German is called "Dilettantismus".

^{Von Flaubert, Gustave - Verfügbar in der digitalen Bibliothek BEIC und hochgeladen in Partnerschaft., Gemeinfrei, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=37858039}

Bouvard et Pécuchet is an unfinished satirical work by Gustave Flaubert, published in 1881 after his death in 1880.

Bouvard et Pécuchet details the adventures of two Parisian copy-clerks, François Denys Bartholomée Bouvard and Juste Romain Cyrille Pécuchet, of the same age and nearly identical temperament. They meet one hot summer day in 1838 by the canal Saint-Martin and form an instant, symbiotic friendship. When Bouvard inherits a sizable fortune, the two decide to move to the countryside. They find a 94-acre (380,000 m2) property near the town of Chavignolles in Normandy, between Caen and Falaise, and 100 miles (160 km) west of Rouen. Their search for intellectual stimulation leads them, over the course of years, to flounder through almost every branch of knowledge.

Flaubert uses their quest to expose the hidden weaknesses of the sciences and arts, as nearly every project Bouvard and Pécuchet set their minds on comes to grief. Their endeavours are interleaved with the story of their deteriorating relations with the local villagers; and the Revolution of 1848 is the occasion for much despondent discussion. The manuscript breaks off near the end of the novel. According to one set of Flaubert's notes, the townsfolk, enraged by Bouvard and Pécuchet's antics, try to force them out of the area, or have them committed. Disgusted with the world in general, Bouvard and Pécuchet ultimately decide to "return to copying as before" (copier comme autrefois), giving up their intellectual blundering. The work ends with their eager preparations to construct a two-seated desk on which to write.

Coming back to modernity you can for sure come up with an example of "stage amateurism", don't you?

But back to the matter, like "real" matter.

Through our school system we are so used to "scrutinizing things" that we forget that if we do, we can come out afterwards again under the microscope and unite them with the one with whom they were previously united.

Through language we revolve around definitions of individual terms and then logically separate them from their context. For example, if a noun such as "quality" itself were now a cow and we wanted to know more about this cow, then we have developed the following habit: To isolate it from the herd and make empirical experiments with it.

^{picture source: pixabay}

We humans tend to do something exclusively with another, because - as I said above - we do linear tasks in visible everyday life.

But life itself is not linear. Which means that causes and effects are embedded into the web of life. Causes and effects within certain conditions are causing and effecting other causes and effects within conditions.

Because networks are dynamic and interconnected, causality is systemic and non-linear. The world is ‘processual’—a ‘thick’ interpenetration of many flows on many levels of scale.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309174157_Big_History_Complexity_Theory_and_Life_in_a_Non-Linear_World

To understand the meaning of a cow, however, we would have to do more than we normally do and, like a shuttle, put the cow back to its herd and see what it does with the other cows in its natural habitat. We would then move further and further upwards and draw our gaze further and further. Then we would have to turn on a time-lapse that records all terrestrial movements of the planet in a relevant (which must be defined and already causes a new problem) space-time structure in order to achieve a real understanding of the cow and the surrounding world.

That seems not doable. If one would take this approach on everything which is aiming for a certain development, for example of technical nature, this would open up so much questions that nothing could come into motion. Yet, people think that it should be done in this manner and therefore suggest to install artificial intelligence and artificial life into the sphere of us humans by using computer sciences in order to receive answers on complex issues.

At present, a view and presumed research attitude prevails in the mainstream and the view of the established sciences: that the researcher is a kind of soldier in search of better combating methods towards evil. But it would be good if it were not a dominant question of becoming and producing "less bad" but as well focusing research on seeing human, animal and plant life as one large organism and discover solutions which give credit to the complexity of life.

... As a result it holds an uncomfortable self view: that we humans ourselves feel that we are bad. Bad towards the living systems in which we breath and that the underlying notion is that we as human species should actually vanish from the surface of this planet?

... The unanswered question of mine is: are efforts which aim towards non harming and zero waste actually cause harm in the exact amount of doing research on the specific issue? Does this produce this kind of despaired thoughts?

Causing diseases by avoiding diseases

A chemist, for example, develops methods for visualising DNA defects so that this can be used in medicine to cure hereditary diseases. Like recently discussed with @sco on his blog. For this purpose, highly toxic chemical preparations and waste materials are being used that have a damaging effect on the environment. A research institution that develops effective remedies and saves lives, but on the other hand produces toxic gases, substances and waste products, endangers this very life. Now, what can be done?

What I say is that everything that is done for life on the one hand harms life on the other hand. That is reality. But can we still work on designs? So far, we have little or no belief that waste free products and preparations can be manufactured. Because we think that life is too complex to be understood and as a result of that it cannot be organized for future generations?

Are we therefore always dealing with a cost-benefit analysis? And do we want to use computer technology to let incorruptible agents decide for us, so to speak?

in our experience, the most interesting toolbox for understanding the non-linear world can be found in complexity theory

Complexity theory began as scientists, studying their subjects in many fields with non-linear maths, noticed striking similarities.
By the early 1990s, the principles of complexity were increasingly being applied to human systems, and, today, a variety of organizations are exploring them, from applications in healthcare at the Plexus Institute to organizational work at the Institute for the Study of Coherence and Emergence. In spite of the methodological challenges of applying complexity theory to social sciences, a growing literature has done just that.
Complexity theory was becoming the study of the patterns that emerge as non-linear, networked systems evolve. With that in mind, striking similarities become evident in many places. For example, we noticed similarities in the dynamic patterns of biological and cultural evolution. That way of thinking drove us to examine how stories in cultural evolution seemed to function much like DNA in biological evolution, as the storehouse of possible structures and behaviours.

(PDF) Big History, Complexity Theory, and Life.... Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309174157_Big_History_Complexity_Theory_and_Life_in_a_Non-Linear_World [accessed Aug 10 2018].

In this context I would like to ask the worker in a lab: Are there micro-organisms that neutralize highly toxic substances for us humans? Who would know the answer if I am a chemist at a laboratory which produces toxic waste and not have the knowledge myself?

We producers and consumers treat matter as waste and not as a valuable resource embedded in a cycle and process. Even if we cannot recycle all the matter that we isolate and treat with harmful substances, at least the effort would be necessary to try and develop solutions to how waste materials can be brought to a much more relevant degree back into cycles.

I would say that there has long been a consensus that life on our planet is accepted as interconnected and that the earth itself is a kind of organ embedded in a cosmos.

Take a bite from your tasty bar of soap

Can you make a soap that cleans and can be eaten at the same time?
Can carpets refresh the air and improve breathing?
How about a nail polish that can be removed in one piece and then composted?

Questions like this are about the very design of our products and the way we think.

“We begin to make human systems and industries fitting when we recognize that all sustainability (just like all politics) is local. We connect them to local material and energy flows, and to local customs, needs, and tastes, from the level of the molecule to the level of the region itself. We consider how the chemicals we use affect local water and soil - rather than contaminate, how might they nourish? - what the product is made from, the surroundings in which it is made, how our processes interact with what is happening upstream and downstream, how we can create meaningful occupations, enhance the region's economic and physical health, accrue biological and technical wealth for the future.”
― William McDonough source

Those kind of questions can also be formulated towards not only a biochemist but to all forms of professions, no?
But how then to gather the specific insights and knowledge on a greater scale? And is this actually the right question?
Wouldn't it be at the same time necessary to think and act on a local basis as this is much more effective towards the physical needs and self experiences of humans? Like in this project of the steemit community, content provided by @anomadsoul.

The concept of "cradle to cradle" Mr. McDonough talks about he worked on with his German colleague Michael Braungart, a chemist himself.

Cradle-to-cradle design (also referred to as Cradle to Cradle, C2C, cradle 2 cradle, or regenerative design) is a biomimetic approach to the design of products and systems that models human industry on nature's processes viewing materials as nutrients circulating in healthy, safe metabolisms. The term itself is a play on the popular corporate phrase "Cradle to Grave," implying that the C2C model is sustainable and considerate of life and future generations (i.e. from the birth, or "cradle," of one generation to the next versus from birth to death, or "grave," within the same generation.)

C2C suggests that industry must protect and enrich ecosystems and nature's biological metabolism while also maintaining a safe, productive technical metabolism for the high-quality use and circulation of organic and technical nutrients. It is a holistic economic, industrial and social framework that seeks to create systems that are not only efficient but also essentially waste free. The model in its broadest sense is not limited to industrial design and manufacturing; it can be applied to many aspects of human civilization such as urban environments, buildings, economics and social systems.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cradle_to_Cradle:_Remaking_the_Way_We_Make_Things

I am somewhat critical about the fact that this concept - as ideal as it is - may lead to the notion that we humans can be able to transform artificial products into waste free ones in particular into upcycled/recycled ones on a technical level and leave a clean - even nourishing - footprint on this planet. This could be seen as wanting to hold on to the standard of unrestrained consumption and economical growth.

Where cradle to cradle as the highest standard of design and usability ends, that is probably where Niko Paech's attitude begins. Mr. Paech is a German economist. He ...

... refers to post-growth economy as an economic system that supplies the human needs not on the basis of, or dependency on economic growth but which is characterized by degrowth. Post-growth economy specifically distinguishes itself from popular terms or ideologies such as "sustainable", "green", "dematerialized" or "decarbonized", rejecting the idea that ecological sustainability through technological development would be a realistic goal when holding on to a system measuring progress merely in added economical value.

In a pleasant demarcation from apocalyptic motivationalism, Niko Paech speaks of an avant-garde that already has post-growth in mind and takes appropriate lifestyle precautions. These people - if they live their concept of life visibly and openly - are the role models for a post-growth era.

I think if you have heard him speak, then this is not to be misunderstood as a kind of people, who now arrogantly put themselves above the other proponents of growth or vested rights, but merely pull through their own (caring for life) boots.

Consistently and unpretentiously, Mr. Paech travels to his destinations by train or bicycle and joins into projects concerned with local energy providing solutions. I joined his decision some time ago and have not travelled by aircraft since 2011. In any case, I am for a deceleration of my lifestyle and I therefore only work a maximum of 20 hours for paid gainful employment. Of course I work much more - for example on this platform - but I can and consciously do not make extravagances in terms of mobility and energy consumption.

The attitude towards things that I could consume without hesitation has changed over time. For me my view on "quality" already changed.

The very thought of no longer travelling by plane initially caused the peculiar panic-like feeling of "never again being able to make an adventurous journey". Once this ban has been imposed, however, new ideas are added, such as: How could I still have an adventure? Which reminds me of a book in which a Londoner spent several years of his life exploring the entire city on foot. Only then can one speak of really recognizing one's own local area and discovering the foreign in it at the same time. Like in this post from @vieanna.

A big city like Hamburg or other metropolises then become a space that feels strange the further I move away from my four walls. I discover backyards, churches, run-down areas as well as treasures and also strangers with whom I could talk. Indeed, I could find here what I long for elsewhere. Here I want permaculture and gardens not having to escape to somewhere else during a three week vacation. I just begun to act and think that way.

The journey is still ongoing.

I am leaving you with probably more questions than answers. But I think to ask the right questions is much more difficult than one actually thinks.

Thank you for reading.

---

Used references and related sources:

Biogeosciences, 3, 281–291, 2006 - The definition of life in the context of its origin by Y. N. Zhuravlev1 and V. A. Avetisov2
1Institute of Biology and Soil Science, Russian Academy of Sciences, Far Eastern Branch, 100-letia 159, 690022 Vladivostok, Russia
2The Semenov Institute of Chemical Physics, Russian Academy of Sciences, Kosygina 4, 119991 Moscow, Russia

COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY AND EVOLUTION: FROM ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE TO ARTIFICIAL LIFE
Klaus Mainzer, University of Augsburg

Big History, Complexity Theory, and Life in a Non-Linear World by Dmitri M. Bondarenko / Russian Academy of Sciences and Editor Ken Baskin / Life Design Partners

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE PHILOSOPHY OF TIME AND SPACE by Bas C. van Fraassen - source

https://www.c2ccertified.org/get-certified/product-certification