Jonathan B. Marder (marder@agri.huji.ac.il)
Mon, 15 Jun 1998 10:07:46 +0100
Hi Squad,
THEO
>To use an analogy you might say that if I am eating Black
>Forest Gateau that the flavour is of Black Forest Gateau and that my
>insistence upon saying that I can taste cherry, chocolate and cream is
a
>tautology, and in a sense it is, but what I lose in brevity I gain in
>explaination. ...
Absolutely. I tried to make the opposite point a while back about the
meaning of the six letters HAMLET. This was the basis of the
language=compression algorith idea. Like many such algorithms, it is
"lossy" and omits "less important details". Saying the name of the play
is not the same as watching it.
Theo's example is a bit more complex. Talking about "Black Forest
Gateau" is not the same as eating it, but it means more (to me) than
talking about "cherry, chocolate and cream". On the other hand, the
former demands more prior knowledge by the listener. The average
4-year-old wouldn't understand it.
...
>I'm convinced that the language is available
>to us to achieve recognition without the need to distort it.
I largely agree, but think that finding the right language is not a
simple task. This is what frustrated Bohr about the definitions of
Quantum Mechanics. But what I take some issue with is the possibility to
state "without the need to distort". IMO *distortion* is always
involved - but I'd prefer a word with less negative connotations. Any
organization of ideas or pattern formation is a type of distortion.
>As I said in my initial post, we must be clear, concise and accurate if
this
>project is to get any further...
I fully agree, and I recognize and appreciate your efforts.
[snip]
>Bo, I am mightily (and then some) impressed by your SOM as intellect of
>MOQ idea and like Ken feel myself dragged closer and closer to it. I
>hope we get the chance in the program to explore this more fully at
some
>point but for now I invite Jonathan to comment upon it as I think it
>helps clarify why I disagree that Quality always requires an observer
>and an observed for its occurence.
Thanks for the invitation. I'm going to change the last word of your
previous sentence so that it now reads:-
"Q always requires an observer and an observed for its *definition*".
Pirsig himself saw this - which is why he was so reluctant to define or
properly describe Q.
I think it becomes a whole lot less problematic if one stresses that the
division of the system into observer vs. observed (SO) is context
dependent, not absolute. I see Pirsig's 4 levels as 4 SO contexts. The
whole problem (IMO) with classical SOM is the underlying assumption of a
single context.
Regards to all,
Jonathan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:21 CEST