Jonathan B. Marder (marder@agri.huji.ac.il)
Sat, 27 Jun 1998 19:05:05 +0100
Hi Michael, Horse, Bo and Squad,
Michael Darling <madarlin@ouray.cudenver.edu>
>If C is the ability to act in anticipation of a sense, it can't be
running
>away from a snake or skunk. It would have to be more like running away
>from an imagined snake or skunk, ie, one not yet sensed by sight or
other
>sense.
Why should one run away from a skunk? Surely one is running away from
the anticipated smell?
To run is to PREact rather than REact.
>And of course if the tree falls it makes a sound whether anyone is
there
>to hear it or not.
The issue here is semantic. A couple of weeks back, Fintan raised the
example of a monkey who just happens to have produced the whole text of
Shakespeare's Hamlet. If their is no-one around to recognise the
achievement, then what has the monkey achieved?
I wrote:-
>... finding the right language is not a
>simple task. ... IMO *distortion* is always
>involved - but I'd prefer a word with less negative connotations. Any
>organisation of ideas or pattern formation is a type of distortion."
to which HORSE replied:-
>Perhaps "confuse" or "obfuscate" should be substituted for distort. I
agree with
>you that there is an impreciseness inherent within everyday language.
I find "confuse" or "obfuscate" even more negative. "Imprecise" is
better. Taxonomic classification of the duckbilled platypus was
problematic because the animal presented an unexpected combination of
features (egg-laying plus mammary glands). This revealed a flaw or "bug"
in the taxonomy program! Language-based descriptions (and computer
programs) may always reveal flaws when presented with the unexpected.
as HORSE himself writes:-
>... the majority of languages did not evolve to handle discussion of
difficult and/or abstract
>concepts, but to convey everyday information, it is obvious that when
explaining
>or discussing a new Metaphysics such as MoQ we have to choose words
>carefully or explain the way in which a word with an already
established set of
>connotations is being used. This is difficult and may be time consuming
but
>necessary if the message is to be understood. No-one is perfect and
mistakes
>will be made but where mistakes do occur, re-explanation is necessary.
I fully agree on that!
In reaction to my observer/observed model for chlorophyll absorbing
light, Horse wrote:-
>Chlorophyll is not an
>observer of anything in any accepted sense. If you have a special
meaning in
>mind then it should be explained. As it is this is pretty much an S-O
statement
>within an S-O framework. A photon may be observed with the use of
specially
>designed equipment, as can the interaction of photon and chlorophyll.
Hold on there! Chlorophyll IS special equipment.
Consider the professor sitting in his office writing about his student's
experimental results. The whole perception pathway goes from event >
detector > amplifier/filter > recorder > computer processing > student >
professor.
Where's the observer in all that. Is the professor the observer and
everything before the observed? But the student is also an intelligent
observer and the computer is making "intelligent decisions" based on the
preloaded programs, and even the amplifier/filter has "hard-wired"
discrimination (value judgement?) built in.
And, as Horse said - "specially DESIGNED [my caps] equipment". Design
implies purpose. Does absorption of light by chlorophyll serve a
purpose? That's another context dependent issue.
Horse:-
>You appear to be using an ... anthropocentric view of an
inorganic/organic event.
I had written:-
>"Water and air molecules don't recognise blue light. ...
Horse prefers:-
>Water and air molecules don't REACT WITH blue light....
I'm extremely familiar with current biochemical parlance, and the term
molecular "RECOGNITION" is commonplace. We talk about how antibodies
recognise antigens, enzymes recognise substrates, various control
proteins recognise specific DNA sequences ... In all cases you can
substitute "react with" - consider the expressions synonymous.
Horses' accusation of my "anthropocentric view" is answered also in my
post which got stripped. Perhaps it'll eventually make it out, but here
is the relevant part again:-
BO:-
>...does the
>Quality idea imply an all- pervading EVALUATING dynamism which has
>created and upholds the hierarchy of moral levels. This "drift" may -
>if one starts with a SOM frame of reference - become "sentient" atoms
>or "observing" chlorophyll molecules etc, but it is not the essence
>of the MOQ!
>
This "all- pervading EVALUATING dynamism" is most important. Pirsig's
metaphysics tries to be universal. The rules guiding the behaviour of
molecules and the "moral" rules guiding humans are fundamentally the
same, but operating at opposite ends of the scale of complexity.
Horse:-
>It would probably be easier still if we simply considered ourselves
participants
>in a Quality-centred event-based reality, then we can start to get away
from the
>whole idea of objects, observers of objects, objective observers of
objects etc. -
>but possibly this is a bit too much of a "giant step for mankind".
Horse, you can't stand on a giants shoulder's wielding an axe,
especially if the target is his head!
I consider the Giant as a still-dynamic being. I want to take advantage
of his immense power.
Where I consider his behaviour inappropriate, or even potentially
destructive, the best I can do is whisper in his ear and hope that I am
right, and that he will listen. Isn't this was Pirsig did?
Horse:-
>Also, if Pirsig's
>4 levels are 4 SO contexts and SO is itself an incorrect or incomplete
system
>then don't we just end up with a splintered view of an incorrect or
incomplete
>system.
Yep! Maybe it'll be a bit more complete than its predecessor.
Horse, I consider your criticisms a challenge. You accuse yourself of
being long-winded and me of sowing confusion. I think you can also
reverse that. I hope that the long-windedness and confusion distill down
to a nice clear synthesis.
With respect to all,
Jonathan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:21 CEST