Horse (horse@wasted.demon.nl)
Fri, 24 Jul 1998 16:15:53 +0100
Hi Magnus and LS
>
> I have some thoughts about this fuzzification business you've
> been discussing the last few posts. They go something like
> this:
>
> First of all, I don't like it. I think it should be avoided as much
> as possible, and it's the job of the metaphysics to do it.
> Contextualims is one way, it allows you to avoid
> fuzzification within a context.
>From the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy:
"Contextualism: the view that inferential justification always takes
place against a background of beliefs that are themselves in no
way evidentially supported."
I think you've missed the whole point of fuzzification. Contextualism
seems to go against the whole idea of MoQ, whilst fuzzification
supports the MoQ and is contained within the MoQ.
>
> I think one of the reasons I don't like it is that it sounds too
> much like contradiction, or platypus. Just think about the
> original platypus, the animal that was both a mammal and
> laid eggs. It wasn't a mammal and it wasn't a reptile, so it
> must have been something fuzzy in between!? We all
> know that it was the stupid classification of mammals
> vs. reptiles that got us into the mess in the first place.
>
> I think it's an equally stupid classification of things vs.
> non things that get us into our current fuzzification.
>
The point about fuzzification is that it avoids rigid catagorisation in
the first place. It is not merely a case of things versus non-things.
In fact this is almost completely opposite to what it is about.
Things VERSUS non-things is A *OR* notA (SOM).
> I think we have the same problem with all "things". That's
> why Pirsig talked about patterns and not things. I would
> argue that all "things" consist of static patterns AND are
> dynamic, SQ AND DQ. You *can* however, always
> distinguish the SQ and the DQ if you tilt your head and
> look at the "thing" from a MoQ perspective.
>
Which is precisely what fuzzification supports. You are completely
misrepresenting fuzziness. Are you really saying that any two or
more patterns in the same level are of value are indistinguishable in
terms of Quality? There is nothing to choose between them?
Surely it is the degree to which those patterns possess Quality (or
vice versa) which enables any distinction in terms of value. There is
low value and high value and a range of value in between, which
relates to the patterns. You said above that 'things' are static AND
dynamic, SQ AND DQ. What exactly have I been arguing in favour
of for some time now? A AND notA. If quality is divided into SQ and
DQ then SQ is NOT DQ and vice versa. So A=SQ and notA=DQ.
Ergo A AND notA. Where is the disagreement? I am not arguing for
MoQ to be subsumed by fuzziness, just some acknowledgement
that the MoQ relies on distinction of quality by degree. To say that
this is not so goes against everything you have said regarding
moral relativism. If we have no way of distinguishing between the
value of two patterns (i.e. they both have quality but no means of
judging the degree of quality - A OR notA) then there is no
difference between them. In other words they are both equally valid
and hence we have moral relativism.
> That goes for the static levels too. All "things" consist
> of all four levels, the four ingredients of our reality,
> more or less developed.
>
If the above is so then either all "things" must possess or be
possessed by quality to different degrees - i.e. in different
proportions (A AND notA) - or they are indistinguishable or non-
existent. Fuzziness supports (is) the idea of possession of a
trait(s) by degree. What you are supporting is all or nothing -
something has quality or it does not. If it has no quality it does not
exist and if it has quality then you say no more about it.
> Note that fuzziness is still around, but it's contained in
> contexts. We don't have to deal with inter-context fuzziness.
>
Better that fuzziness is contained by MoQ - if we start getting into
contextualism there are going to be some serious problems.
I think that what is at the heart of this argument is your initial
comment - you don't LIKE it. This goes back to emotivism.
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