Horse (horse@wasted.demon.nl)
Mon, 13 Jul 1998 20:16:29 +0100
Jonathan, Platt and Squad
Sorry for the delay in replying to a couple of older posts but there is
something very relevant to the current thread which has been
missed.
A while back Jonathan wrote:
"The pervasiveness of this view is perhaps why the Lila Squad
exists!
In Athens, rhetoric lost to the dialectic because the playing field
was one of language.
The dialectic is based on exclusive dualistic relationships, or as
Horse would say "A *OR* not A".
This binary logic is immensely powerful and scaleable, as has
been shown in the digital computer. The same "binary logic"
pervades our common language. I suggest that this binary nature is
inherent to language, and this is a reason for the victory of the
dialectic, not a consequence of it."
Platt replied:
I agree 100 percent with your analysis of binary logic as set forth in
your post of July 7. I wrote "Yes, Yes" next to your last two lines:
What didn't happen then (apart from me not replying sooner) was a
reference to the extension principle:
The Extension Principle (Horse quoting from Lotfi Zadeh):
"...that the classical results of Boolean logic are recovered from
fuzzy logic operations when all fuzzy membership grades are
restricted to the traditional set {0, 1}. This effectively establishes
fuzzy subsets and logic as a true generalization of classical set
theory and logic. In fact, by this reasoning all crisp (traditional)
subsets ARE fuzzy subsets of this very special type; and there is
no conflict between fuzzy and crisp methods."
So binary logic, A OR NOT A, dialectic, SOM etc. are no more
than a partial implementation of a larger, and much more inclusive,
whole. I would say that the 'binarification' of our thoughts, language
etc.has been brought about by manipulation and conformance to
the beliefs and methodologies AT A SOCIAL LEVEL. The MoQ
seeks to rectify the imbalance brought about by many hundreds of
years of manipulation and lies. That's what the footer of my posts
refers to:
"Making history, it turned out, was quite easy.
It was what got written down.
It was as simple as that!"
In the past some of my posts have been misinterpreted as relating
the MoQ to Fuzzy Logic, but this is most definitely NOT the case.
What I have attempted to do is show that the MoQ holds within it
what has been referred to as SOM. Pirsig has not attempted to
destroy SOM but to show that SOM is contained within MoQ -
subsumed if you like. MoQ is a fuzzification of much of the modern
day forms of binary belief systems. Fuzzification is not a means of
obscuring or confusing (obfuscation) but of expansion and
clarification.
To quote Zadeh again:
"...rather than regarding fuzzy theory as a single theory, we should
regard the process of ``fuzzification'' as a methodology to generalize
ANY specific theory from a crisp (discrete) to a continuous (fuzzy)
form..."
The MoQ, I believe, is such a process and works at all levels. It
has made our view of reality more coherent without losing the many
benefits that have been gained by SOM - science and technology
being an example.
Platt believes that mine and his thinking are too far apart for any
reconciliation, but in the same post accepts a correction, based on
the above methodology, that I made to his DQ/SQ split definition:
"As for the rest of your post of July 6, we're so far apart in our
thinking that there's no point in trying to find common ground.
When you exclude statements about reality from reality and throw
logic to the winds, I can find no foothold on which to base a
response."
I wish you would reconsider Platt and see if we can find out why
our thinking seems to be so polarised. Maybe I have explained
myself badly in the past but I believe, as I'm sure you do, that the
MoQ provides for an expanded and more coherent view of reality.
How exactly am I excluding statements about reality from reality
and throwing logic to the winds. The form of logic that I use is
multivalent NOT bivalent, and my view of reality is shaped to a
great extent by the MoQ.
Horse
"Making history, it turned out, was quite easy.
It was what got written down.
It was as simple as that!"
Sir Sam Vimes.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:27 CEST