Notes

        Awake at three, up and downstairs at four. You awoke still listening to late night classical on WGUC in Cincinnati, the Los Angeles Guitar Quartet playing Bach. You thought it was wonderful and was played with so much gusto that it woke you up more.

         It was a delight. I had never heard Bach played on guitars before. Anyway, I’m up sitting in my favorite living room chair with a nightlight plugged into my MacBook to see the keys. Daughter has a new MacBook Pro, a fancier one, and the keys are lit which I think is most cool for a sometimes night cat like me. I love the quiet setting this time of night, it gives the room an ambience of presence, my own, I suppose, but I like to think there is more in the world that meets the eye and sometimes it sets right here in your own living room no matter who or where in the world you are living. Fantasy, I suppose, but I like it anyway.

         Mid-morning. Handyman Connection was here to give an estimate for the squirrel damage. They will return next week.

         I am ready to write on the scene but I went to it only to draw a blank as to direction. I keep focusing on the fractal but don’t know how to introduce it here.

         First look up the definition in your Merriam-Webster and post here.

“Main Entry: fractal; Function: noun.
Date: 1975: any of various extremely irregular curves or shapes for which any suitably chosen part is similar in shape to a given larger or smaller part when magnified or reduced to the same size . . . fractal adjective.”

            Now, check in out in Wikipedia:

         I have four pages of material, single spaced. I will have to read over it carefully and try to absorb in and hope I can use it in context with the scene in some way. It is interesting stuff, and more of what I expected, although the dictionary definition is not what I expected it may prove useful too, as a sort of introduction into the deeper explanation, which to me, still has to fit within the context of the early Milesians philosophers. This is my thinking on the subject.

         Follow through on your reading and I will underline what will be important to consider. One of the main points is that the ‘tree’ has to be deterministic rather than non-deterministic for this particular purpose. This is because, in your mind, an Order of some sort had to precede Chaos. Some of this is your subconscious, if you will, traditional Presbyterian upbringing, a belief in predestination.

         What we are going to do here is to show how it is possible to have a form of predestination and free will at the same time. This is something you have long considered philosophically impossible. It has to be one or the other, that’s what you used to emphasis in your classes, particularly with MacBeth, Hamlet, and Paradise Lost.

         This can’t be done to my satisfaction, Amorella. It is impossible to have a sense of ‘destiny’ or predestination and free will. You cannot have both, at least not by my way of thinking.

         Post this and we will continue after a break for lunch.- Amorella.

         I will, but it is impossible in my mindset, Amorella. It is either destiny or free will. Necessity cannot change this. You cannot make a square a circle no matter who or what you are. It is not reasonable. And, while I can accept contradictions in terms of logic this, to me, is more than a contradiction. You cannot have such a thing in something as fundamental as First Cause, even if this is just a fiction. I don’t want a fantasy with faeries and sweetness and all that faery tale rot. No offence to any reader here, but my books are not about these things, even though I do love the romance of them, especially the old legendary faery tales.  

         You found some elements that will be useful after condensing  four pages to three.

         I have driven the notes up to five pages as I added much of Wikipedia’s information on Chaos Theory. I read the book but that was some time ago.

         I checked my old logic notes, but they are daughter’s and not my originals. This is what she has:

Chaos Theory

            Characteristics: [Fate-like]

            1. Our behavior is attributed to beliefs, knowledge and expectations [culture]

            2. notes from Chaos by James Gleick

            3. [probability shows randomness is not necessarily random in computer models]

And, this is followed by a review thinking logically:

Review Steps in Logical Process: [Logic For Undergraduates]

            1. appeal to authority (appeal to ask questions of authority)

            2. reason (do I want t do this?) [why]

            3. perceptions (what you think, visual, senses)

            4. intuition (subconscious, gut feeling)

The last section is examining basic logical fallacies:   [Logic For Undergraduates]

            1. overgeneralization; jumping to conclusions from one or two cases (nuke safety)

            2. thin-entering wedge; overgeneralization involving prediction (Hindenburg)

            3. name calling; forsaking issue to attack personal character (Jane Fonda)

            4. you’re another; if both wrong then the less wrong is therefore more right

            5. cause & effect; A appears to cause B (Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes)

            6. false analogy; false comparisons;

                        appeal to past: (1960 was a better time to be young than in than 1997)

                        appeal to future: (things will be better after high school graduation)

            7. wise people can be wrong; clenching an argument w/ appeal to authority

            8. statistics prove; 4/5 dentists . . . survey until desired results

            9. appeal to the crowd; [cheerleading]; Ex. Hitler rallies

            10. arguing in circles; using conclusion to prove itself (true if on TV-on TV true)

            11. self-evident truth; ‘everyone is doing it’ therefore it is okay

            12. black or white; forcing any issue w/shades of gray to yes or no (abortion)

            13. guilt by association; running around with the wrong crowd

         Further research online I found two essays of interest. One is titled: “Postmodern Theater: A Manifestation of Chaos Theory” by Raymond Saner, CSEND Geneva, from the Pari Center for New Learning: Library, and the other “Chaos Theory” from Marxist.com,science-old, chaos theory. This work attempts to affirm didactic materialism as fact rather than theory as far as I can see, but it might provide a springboard for further thinking in terms of society and chaos theory. I will need time to read them over.

         You find all this interesting but this is dialogue and a novel going together here not social philosophy. These works are not about economic or political systems orndorff. The focus here is a First Cause anchor that is set by unknown forces you call angelic-like but I would rather think of them as “Preconceived Unknowable Forces”.

         Behind the scene Mother has described her original adventure to another Place of the Dead that held another species similar to human who also survived physical death, i.e. the marsupials in the first three books.

         I thought she was going to give a rational for other belief systems on Earth.

         First, in a separate document, I will write down the dialogue that took place between Mother, Sophia and Kassandra so you can see where she is coming from.

         Shouldn’t this be in the book directly?

         Why, when it can be put in scene eight and still drive the story forward?

         Here I have been carried away from the task again. I get it in my mind that I need to know and understand more about fractals and Chaos Theory. I don’t remember all this material and I don’t want the reader to think I am be negligent of scientific background.

         Again, enough for tonight. When you want to read the dialogue among the three women, set up a new document and we will go to it. Post this and then relax. It has been a busy day house-cleaning for daughter and grandson's arrival Sunday.– Amorella.