chaos theory for lay people?

[Vaska]

>From Matthew P Wiener:
>>
>>>I would first assess the meaning of the science that is present.
>
>>Silly me not to have thought of doing so in the first place.  But please
>>don't feel bound by my interests and the approach I may take.
>
>I don't.  I agree it is silly to evaluate the lack first, more so
>here because the lack is rather extensive.  Chaos theory hasn't been
>singled out for negative treatment (see comment about context above),
>so without some prior understanding of the positive, speculation here
>is unmoored, if not unhinged.

OK, be as arrogant as you need to be, but I really don't believe you're
either as literal minded or as obtuse as you try to come across here, Matt.  

Main point: it's clear that we are talking entirely at cross-purposes here:
not a productive activity for anyone involved.  I didn't for a moment think
that chaos theory, in all its glaring absence from _M&D_ [where a few
anachronistic references to it might have provided a particularly telling
counterpoint to 17/18th cent. science: i.e. the type of counterpoint Pynchon
wouldn't get by dropping a few hints about quantum theory, say] might be
singled out for negative treatment -- by Pynchon, that is.  Far from it, in
fact.

It'd take way too long to explain which direction I'm heading and why; and
we'll probably get there eventually, anyway, given another few months of
reading and talking about _M&D_.  See yeah later.

Vaska