From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sat May 22 2004 - 05:04:54 BST
Mark, Sam and all Focusers:
...your analogies, 'first baby step of the other' and 'symphony becomes a
note' generates problems here dmb, because you identify a beginning point
which is part of the old level. That reintroduces reductionism, which is not
on. You want your cake and you want to eat it also. I feel this may be
because you wish to include structure as part of the oldest idea known to
man? But this has been dismissed above as a confusion between general value
differentiation's and particular rational differentiation's.
I think you're trying way too hard to disagree. The analogies are Pirsig's.
They come from a quote that was included in the post you ostensibly
responded to. The "first baby step" is just a simpler way of saying "the
lowest element of the lowest programming language" and the musical analogy
is put in Pirsig's terms EXACTLY...
"These Machine Language instructions were the final achievement toward which
all the circuits aimed. They were the end performance of a whole SYMPHONY of
switching operations. When he got into programming he found that this
SYMPHONY of electronic circuits was considered to be a mere SINGLE NOTE in a
whole other SYMPHONY that had no resemblance to the first one. ..The Machine
Language Instruction Repertoire, which had been the entire design goal, was
now the lowest element of the lowest level programming language."
As for the rest of your "criticisms", I honestly don't know what you're
talking about. It seems you've used my post as a platform to express your
ideas about "coherence" in the MOQ. We could have a conversation about the
elected topic, but I have to insist that you respond directly AND without
weighing it all down with your personal theories and repetitious jargon.
And I must say, your constant use the word "coherence" is extremely ironic.
P.S. Sam, my criticism was NOT that you took Pirsig's analogy literally. Not
even close. Mine was centered on refuting the idea that there is anything
between the levels. There is no gasket, washer, lubricant, etc. Have you any
response to that criticism? Did I NOT make a good case that the analogy is
aimed at illustrating the discrete nature of the levels?
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_focus/
MF Queries - email@example.com
To unsubscribe from moq_focus follow the instructions at:
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun May 23 2004 - 23:25:17 BST