Lars Marius Garshol (larsga@ifi.uio.no)
Thu, 8 Jan 1998 13:15:05 +0100
* Bodvar Skutvik
ö
ö Nice try Lars Marius, but you are reinventing gunpowder. The very
ö reason for Pirsig to come up with the quality idea was that anyone
ö who tries to find what is "really subjective and objective" is
ö doomed to frustration.
I know, and it's that frustration I want, because I think it would be
enlightening for me personally.
ö You tentatively put forward numbers as an example (remenber Martin's
ö antagonist Mike who did the same?). But where are the mathematical
ö truths? Point to them! You state that you are trying to think
ö entirely within a SOM framework, disregarding MOQ for the time
ö being. Exactly. Within SOM's framework you have to admit that
ö EVERYTHING (except matter) is in our minds. Subjective!!
I agree (if you include matter, like you did below). What I was
uncertain of was whether one could create an intellectual structure
that all people would interpret the same way. Peano arithmetic would
be a good example. It uses two symbols: 0 and S. 0 is zero as we know
it. (Ie: what you get if you compute 5-5.) S is the successorship
function. (Ie: add one to the argument.) So S0 is 1, SS0 is 2 etc. Add
the concept of addition, and you have it.
It's kinda hard to imagine anyone disagreeing on what these concepts
actually mean and it doesn't matter if they do because as long as they
follow the rules they'll get the same results. This is a formal
system, so theoretically one can throw away the interpretations and
just view it as a game: idly doing string manipulations on a piece of
paper.
However, we'll all have different associations connected to these
symbols and the way the rules work. For instance, I'm instantly
reminded of programming languages like Miranda and no doubt you
connect this with other things.
So, are the theorems of Peano arithmethic objective? Do they exist
independently of the subjects, like Plato thinks and do they have to
do so to be objective or is it enough that all subjects agree on them
and their interpretation?
I'm still not sure, I must admit, but I feel this helped somewhat.
ö Ideas, including numbers, mathematics, etc are Intellectual patterns
ö of value.
I know, but for the purposes of this "investigation" I'd like to
disregard that for a while. I want to really know why SOM must be
rejected and then see how MOQ solves the problem. What I really want
to get at is why the concept of quality is necessary and exactly what
it means. I have a superficial understanding of all this already, but
I want to get it under my skin.
ö Don't misunderstand me: the subject/object classification is
ö necessary for the Intellect.
If MOQ really works it shouldn't be. Or?
ö Rationality requires a temporarily subjective-objective division, it
ö was your "purely" that got me.
That was intentional: if SOM is to make sense some things have to be
purely subjective or objective and I figured that that was the area
where the concepts would be most likely to break.
ö Remember, we arrived at consensus that the Intellectual level of MOQ
ö can be viewed as SOM itself, but this has become reality itself
ö within Western culture. (Have you been sleeping in class? :-))
Yes. I killed 300 unread LilaSquad emails because that was the only
way I could have any kind of hope of keeping up with the group. This
conclusion sounds interesting, but when I read it like this I must
admit that I have no idea what it really means.
ö MOQ is an enormous effort to - like Munchhausen - lift ourselves by
ö the hair (bootstrap) out of this quagmire.
What quagmire? I lost you there.
Anyway, thanks for a very useful answer.
-- "These are, as I began, cumbersome ways / to kill a man. Simpler, direct, and much more neat / is to see that he is living somewhere in the middle / of the twentieth century, and leave him there." -- Edwin Brockhttp://www.ifi.uio.no/ülarsga/ http://birk105.studby.uio.no/
-- post message - mailto:lilasqdÉhkg.com unsubscribe/queries - mailto:dianaÉasiantravel.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:37 CEST