Re: MD Time

From: Scott Roberts (jse885@localnet.com)
Date: Thu May 26 2005 - 05:55:42 BST

  • Next message: Platt Holden: "MD A Modern Brujo"

    Ian,

    Well, an example would still help, because for the "things" I am interested
    in -- consciousness, mainly -- the center is the most fuzzy, while going out
    onto the axes is where one finds more clarity -- but where one also becomes
    wrong. That is, the LCI produces the opposite picture than what you
    describe. The two opposites (e.g., continuity and change, or subject and
    object) are each more comprehensible, but a philosophy based on just one
    will be false, as is the attempt to just combine them (dualism). One may
    also note that there is an obvious analogy -- maybe more than an analogy --
    with Heisenberg Uncertainty.

    - Scott

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "ian glendinning" <psybertron@gmail.com>
    To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 7:41 PM
    Subject: Re: MD Time

    Scott - the aphorism ...

    I wasn't really talking the triplets here. It's just the rule that
    creates the zillion onion-skins. It's easier to describe with a
    picture.

    Roughly - Each "thing" has three layers along any given axis.
    In the middle is the bit where there is little doubt what you're
    talking about, because you chosen and named what it is you're talking
    about.
    Above and below it are two "distinguishing" layers where its doubtful
    how it relates to other things (that you are distinguishing from it by
    some classification rule) on that axis / aspect. Think of a gaussian
    distribution bell-curve - the hump in the middle, with two tails.

    Trouble is, that rule also applies to each layer - certainty in the
    middle, doubt at the two extremes. So where you had 2 - the thing and
    its complement, you found 3
    where you had 3 (on a chosen aspect / aspect) you find 9, then 27,
    then 81, then a zillion onion-skins, for each aspect of
    classification.

    It's only an aphorism. :-) (To remind us there are many shades of
    grey, or many "onion-skins" when we open a subject up to analysis.)
    Ian

    On 5/26/05, Scott Roberts <jse885@localnet.com> wrote:
    > Ian,
    >
    > Ian said:
    > My little aphorism for the binary chop (clasification) problem is ...
    >
    > "Everything comes in three layers, including layers."
    >
    > Now that IS an axiom.
    >
    > Scott:
    > I can agree with the "three", but I'm not sure about the "layers". But I
    may
    > be mistaking what you mean. There is the Hegelian triad, which is
    > layer-like, but there is also the Peircean triad, which is not. Maybe an
    > example would help.
    >
    > - Scott
    >
    >
    >
    > MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    > Mail Archives:
    > Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    > Nov '02 Onward -
    http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    > MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
    >
    > To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    > http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
    >
    >

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu May 26 2005 - 05:59:22 BST