Magnus Berg (qmgb@bull.se)
Mon, 27 Jul 1998 16:02:21 +0100
Hi Horse and Squad
(I sent this off last friday but it bounced at hkg)
Horse wrote:
>
> >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.
Why? The MoQ itself is a context. Any metaphysics is a context. There's
no evidence involved, just ad hoc assumptions. You can't create a
metaphysics using deduction.
Quite funny really, makes me see why SOM don't like the word
"metaphysics". SOM thinks it has evidence for its knowledge, so
no context or metaphysics is necessary.
> 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 don't agree that A OR notA is SOM but never mind. Things vs.
non-things
requires fuzzification yes. What I tried to say was that this
fuzzification can be divided into two fuzzy areas with the SQ/DQ
split. The fuzziness then becomes smaller within those two contexts.
The SQ fuzzy area is then divided into four smaller fuzzy areas.
What I absolutely think is that all these division lines is
crystal clear, and that's why the MoQ avoids contradictions.
A SOM 'thing' is fuzzy all the way through. But with the MoQ, the
thing can be divided into 5 compartments. Each compartment is
fuzzy, or analog, within itself. But there's no fuzziness in
between.
> 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?
No, of course not. I said that fuzziness is still around, within the
levels.
> 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.
Yes, things are SQ AND DQ. What I mean is that things vs. non-things
is not a good division, the border becomes fuzzy which I think is bad.
SQ/DQ is a good, clear cut, made by Phaedrus' knife.
> 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.
In a SOM framework it's emotivism, yes. But in MoQ, it's an
intellectual Quality Event. Discussing it like this makes me examine
the context in which that Quality Event took place. Maybe it'll
be different the next time.
Magnus
--
"I'm so full of what is right, I can't see what is good"
N. Peart - Rush
--
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 - 16:43:29 CEST