Diana McPartlin (diana@asiantravel.com)
Sun, 8 Feb 1998 09:41:52 +0100
Doug Renselle wrote:
>
> Diana McPartlin wrote:
> > Platt, Doug,
> >
> > Some advice:
> >
> > If it ain't simple, it ain't the MoQ
> >
> > Diana
> >
> Diana,
>
> I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
>
> Do you honestly believe that what you wrote above is what Pirsig says
> about the MoQ?
Yes I honestly do.
> 'Lila' is unambiguous about simplicity and complexity. DQ is simple!
> Everyone recognizes it but cannot define it. SQ is complex! We can
> define it, but the definitions are endless because the possible patterns
> are infinite and range from infinitely simple to infinitely complex.
The permutations of the static levels may be endless but the elements
are simple. Pirsig managed to sum up the static levels in a mere two
paragraphs at the beginning of chapter 12. The rest of the discussion is
explorations of these patterns.
Consider this: There are four primary printing colors: cyan, magenta,
yellow and black and a handful of basic compositions. The combinations
of these elements are endless. Some are simple, some are complex. But
every printed graphic you will ever see can be explained in terms of
these simple elements. It's the same with the MoQ. The combinations of
the elements are infinite. But the theory behind is simple.
And Doug, before you start insisting that this is yet another
"uncertainty principle". I am not saying that the MoQ is both simple and
complex at the same time. I am saying that the MoQ is simple but it can
be used to explain complicated things.
A penknife may be used to carve a piece of wood into a storyboard of the
entire plot of The Romance of the Three Kingdoms, intricate down to the
details on the hair ornaments of kung fu fighting empresses. The
scupture is complex but the tool is simple.
The MoQ is an intellectual tool, just as the penknife is a tool. At
their best they are both strong, sharp and easy to handle. The tool of
the MoQ may be used to explain the complex patterns of the static
levels. But that does not make it complex itself.
As the MoQ lies at the intellectual level it should be judged by the
standards of the intellectual level, and one of the best established
standards of the intellectual level is simplicity. It is the principle
of Occam's razor -- other things being equal, we always prefer the
simplest explanation.
Whenever someone reacts against simplicity it's always my suspicion that
it's because they are steeped in social value. It's the social level
that thinks complexity must be dreadfully clever because it's hard to
understand.
It's the social level that says "at this particular point of
maturization" instead of "now". It's the social level that writes
endless footnotes instead of letting logic speak for itself. It's the
social level that uses language to impress rather than inform.
Danah Zohar, in 'Who's afraid of Schrodinger's Cat?' explains it better
than me:
"Niels Bohr, one of the founding fathers of quantum physics, was often
asked to speak to lay audiences about the new science. He would begin by
telling a story in which a young rabbinical student goes to three
lectures by a very famous rabbi. Afterward he describes these to his
friends. The first lecture, says the studen, was very good -- he
understood everything. The second was much better -- he did not
understand it, but the rabbi understood everything. The third lecture
was, however the best of all, very subtle and deep -- it was so good
that even the rabbi did not understand it"
Diana
-- 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 - 16:42:47 CEST