LS Re: Fuzzification


Horse (horse@wasted.demon.nl)
Sun, 19 Jul 1998 06:21:12 +0100


Hi Platt and Squad
>
> On the contrary, the last time I looked the idea that something is one
> thing or another is very much alive and well. A chair is still not a house,
> a car is not a cat, a Platt is not a Horse. Unless we make and maintain
> such clear, unfuzzy distinctions, our experience would become totally
> incoherent. We would live in a constant state of doubt, unable to act, even
> in the face of a clear and present danger. The law of identity, A is A, is
> necessary for survival. Even a slug must distinguish unfuzzily between
> edible and not edible, friend and foe.
>

I think there is an amount of misrepresentation in the above, but
that is in part due to some poor explanation on my part. Obviously
a house is not a chair nor is a car a cat etc. Fuzzification does not
try to blur lines between things in completely different catagories.
Yes I accept that catagories do exist, even if they are little more
than intellectual constructions. But these catagories are often the
source of many problems and disagreement. Catagorisation and
compartmentalising exist in order that we can, as humans, group
together objects, concepts etc. which we feel have similar
propeties. This enables us to express ideas and communicate with
each other using broadly similar concepts. It provides a frame of
reference. In addition, these catagories and concepts provide the
foundations for our language If I describe to you a thing that is
covered in fur, has four legs, sharp teeth and utters the sound
'meow', I would probably think you a little odd if you thought I
meant a car!
So when I talk of fuzzification I am not talking about unifying the
concept of a cat and a car.
What fuzzification does is to 'soften' rigid categorization. This can
be between closely related sets/catagories of things or can refer to
how the properties of a member of a group relate to the whole
group.

The platypus is an example of this. It has mainly properties of a
mammal and some properties of a reptile (or a bird or fish) - it lays
eggs, is covered by fur, is warm blooded, and suckles its young
(its probably a good job it doesn't have feathers or fly). So a
member of the order monotremes is neither fully mammal, nor
reptile, nor fish , nor bird and has precisely two members - the
platypus and the spiny ant-eater. Monotremes are placed in the
class Mammalia but are the only members of this super-class that
lay eggs. I could go on but it would get boring. In other words a
platypus could be described as a fuzzy mammal or a fuzzy reptile.
It is the catagorisation that determines the label that is attached to
a thing. These labels are arbitrary not absolute.
To try and make reality conform to our beliefs is pointless. Reality
has no absolutes. There are frames of reference within which
terminology makes sense. These frames of reference can vary. It is
the agreement within a frame of reference that provides clarity.
Fuzzification extends the frame of reference.

The law of identity - A is A - as a logical statement, means that
this must be true in all possible worlds. As neither you nor I have
access to all possible worlds the validity of this statement cannot
be proven, but given a particular frame of reference it makes sense.
If I say an apple is an apple then this is logically true on condition
that an apple is an apple in all possible worlds. If, however I say an
apple is red then this may be only only partially true. Binary logic
is only true by definition. If the basis of the definition is
inconsistent
or incomplete then the system built on it will fail eventually, as
binary logic does. I'm not saying that the foundations of multivalent
logic are absolutely consistent and complete as this is
contradictory (Russells Theorem I think, answered by Godel) but it
has a higher degree of consistency and completeness than binary
logic.

 
> The idea that something is or is not has disappeared? I counted 31 uses of
> is, is not and other forms of the verb to be in your post. Hardly a
> disappearance act I'd say. If you reply that forms of the verb to be are
> just intellectual constructs and not real, you pretty much wipe out
> Pirsig's intellectual level.
>

I'm sure you use the terms up and down. In an absolutist system
these terms are meaningless. There is no such thing as absolute
up or absolute down The terms are relative, but if you understand
the frame of reference both terms make perfect sense.

> Well, that's just your subjective opinion isn't it? Who is to say which has
> the greater value? I wouldn't consider binary logic a miserable failure in
> the light of a 2000 year history of modern civilization predominated by
> such logic. ("We hold these truths to be self-evident " E= mc2, etc.)
>

Are you saying that a system with only 2 possible states has
greater value than a system with an infinite number of possible
states? If so then you must agree that Dynamic Quality that has
one of two possible states is better than Dynamic Quality with an
infinite number of possibilities.
Our 2000 year history has been predominantly static and is a
history of violent insistence on adherence to a static social
system. Occasional appearances of true dynamic quality has
managed to stop total stagnation. The roots of the technology that
exists today can be traced back a few hundred years at most. And
as for self-evident truths, why don't you apply this to Phlogiston
and see how self evident that particular truth was.
There is no such thing as an absolute truth - at best there are
theories that have not been disproven YET.

>
> That's easy. When I see a body lying in a casket at the undertaker's, I say
> the person is completely and utterly dead. In your fuzzy view, it almost
> seems as if death is really not so bad after all. I must admit such a view
> frightens me. I pray no one in a position of power will wonder as you do,
> "Is the person dead or not?"
>

I agree that the PERSON may be completely and utterly dead -
although there have been a number cases of people being buried
alive and/or 'recovering' from deep comatose states which appear
as death - but the body is not dead otherwise it would not continue
to decompose. There are also a great number of cases of people
dying and being revived. All bodily functions have ceased - no
heartbeat, or brain activity which is how we define dead - and they
are then revived. I think that death of the PERSON is something to
be avoided very carefully, as, if there were no death there would be
no life, death is the price that we pay for the dynamic quality of
sexual reproduction. Or would you prefer cloning to sex? I know
where my vote goes as I reckon cloning isn't half as much fun as
sex. But absolute death, as I see it, doesn't exist only death of the
person (intellectual and social). Everything else gets recycled.

> Actually I agree with you that a lot of what we experience can be
> characterized as fuzzy. In Pirsigian terms, each higher level appeared to
> increase the fuzzy factor, but the intellectual level reversed the process
> with its insistence on definition and dialectic.

Maybe the western intellectual process did but the same doesn't
apply to eastern intellectual process. Actually I think that this is a
major problem in the west and often within the Lila Squad. Many
people seem to be convinced that the western view is the only true
view of the world and that any other view is plain silly or wrong.
Hence the denigration of 'mystical' because it doesn't conform to
the strict limitations and boundaries that western belief imposes.
This is an outcome of the rigidity that you seem to champion. The
A OR notA SOM way of thinking.

> I quote from Lila, chapter 9:
> "In his book Phaedrus had tried to save Quality from
> metaphysics by
> refusing to define it, by placing it outside the dialectical chess board.
> Anything that is undefined is outside metaphysics, since metaphysics can
> only function with defined terms. If you can't define it you can't argue
> about it."
>
> And that would be a disaster for the Lila Squad.
>

So in other words we should dump MoQ in favour of SOM. SOM is
well defined and acceptable to the majority. From what you have
said above it contains all the absolutes and definitions necessary,
in a SOM world, for the continuation of that SOM world. Why
should the Lila Squad bother to go against the grain and fight for
the MOQ.
I think the reason is that it is because the MoQ is better. But to
say that in the SOM view makes no sense. Prove it's betterness.

It's good to hear from you Platt as this type of argument is the
lifestuff of the Lila Squad. I look forward to your reply.

Horse

"Making history, it turned out, was quite easy.
It was what got written down.
It was as simple as that!"
Sir Sam Vimes.

--
homepage - http://www.moq.org/lilasquad
unsubscribe/queries - mailto:lilasquad@moq.org



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:28 CEST