Bodvar Skutvik (skutvik@online.no)
Thu, 8 Jan 1998 11:02:17 +0100
05 Jan 1998 22:56:58 +0100
Lars Marius Garshol wrote:
> I've been reading a lot about AI lately (maybe I'll write something
> for the web site eventually), and some ideas are starting to bubble
> somewhere deep down in my brain. They haven't come together just yet,
> but Magnus' excellent article got the bubbling started. Basically,
> I'm a little unhappy with his dismissal of AI (and his use of Dynamic
> Quality in that dismissal) and I'm also a little unhappy with the
> Squads rejection of the Subject/Object viewpoint.
> These ideas haven't yet matured to the point where discussion about
> them becomes worthwhile. I just wanted y'all :) to know why I'm asking
> the questions I do below.
> Do any of you know of any good definitions of the terms subjective and
> objective? Can you think of any thing/idea/concept/whatever that would
> be purely subjective or objective? (I'm now trying to think entirely
> within a SOM framework, disregarding MOQ for the time being.)
> The idea I have is that there might exist ideas that are purely
> objective. (I've no idea yet what it would mean for something to be
> purely subjective.) The way I'm trying to go to find them is towards
> completely objective representations of something. Something like the
> symbol "1" or the equation "1+1=2". However, currently I'm a little
> lost as to on what kind of level this objective entity should exist.
> What I'm thinking is that if something is purely objective all
> subjects should have the same interpretation of it (provided they
> understand it correctly). Formal mathematical systems might be a way
> to go to achieve such a thing.
> Anyway, when I find the time I'll sit down with a stack of paper and
> try to work this out and see where it's taking me. For now, these are
> just high-quality questions for me. :) What I'd really like is to hear
> what kinds of responses this sparks off in the rest of the squad, just
> to feed the bubbling in my head. :)
> My hope is that by trying to find things that are really subjective or
> objective I'll get a better understanding of the difference between
> the SOM and MOQ paradigms. Maybe the S/O dichotomy is really a
> continuous scale, maybe it doesn't make sense at all, I don't know
> yet, but I'd like to find out.
Nice try Lars Marius, but you are reinventing gunpowder. The very
reason for Pirsig to come up with the quality idea was that anyone
who tries to find what is "really subjective and objective" is doomed
to frustration. You tentatively put forward numbers as an example
(remenber Martin's antagonist Mike who did the same?). But where are
the mathematical truths? Point to them! You state that you are
trying to think entirely within a SOM framework, disregarding MOQ for
the time being. Exactly. Within SOM's framework you have to admit
that EVERYTHING (except matter) is in our minds. Subjective!!. The
case is water- and airthight. Really, upon second thoughts, even
matter is perceived by our subjective senses and ends up in Kant's
mysterious "Ding an Sich" realm. It's no good protesting .....but
everybody knows... this is silly...etc". This paradoxical outcome is
the inevitable result of SOM thinking, what broke Phaedrus of ZMM and
led to his declaring SOM's division invalid.
Ideas, including numbers, mathematics, etc are Intellectual
patterns of value. On that level they are as "objective" as an atom on
the Inorganic level; a living organism on the Biological level or a
country on the Social level. What's purely subjective or objective
does not apply within the MOQ, and afterwards I cannot see how you can
disregard it. It is like declaring modern cosmology suspended for the
time being and looking for what "pure" crystal sphere upholds
the moon in its orbit.
Don't misunderstand me: the subject/object classification is
necessary for the Intellect. Rationality requires a temporarily
subjective-objective division, it was your "purely" that got me.
Remember, we arrived at consensus that the Intellectual level of MOQ
can be viewed as SOM itself, but this has become reality itself
within Western culture. (Have you been sleeping in class? :-)) MOQ is
an enormous effort to - like Munchausen - lift ourselves by the
hair (bootstrap) out of this quagmire.
Bo
-- post message - mailto:lilasqd@hkg.com unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:37 CEST