Doug Renselle (renselle@on-net.net)
Fri, 6 Mar 1998 04:48:22 +0100
Hi Magnus, Maggie, and TLS,
See comments below -
Magnus Berg wrote:
>
> Hi Maggie and LS
>
> Hettinger wrote:
> > >
> > > I see that you are talking about the static ladder as one-
> > > dimensional, and of course it is, I'm not stating otherwise.
> >
> > It puzzles me that you said that. I think I see the static
> "ladder" as
> > more of a tree, perhaps a banyan tree that has the capability of
> > dropping new roots from its branches.
>
> The banyan tree is new to me but I think I get the picture. We
> might be talking about different abstraction layers here. Let me
> draw a parallel to computer science.
>
> In object oriented lingo, there's two basic ways to view a system.
> The object hierarchy shows relationships between objects, and the
> class hierarchy shows relationships between classes (of objects).
>
> The object hierarchy would map to the banyan tree, consisting of
> patterns (objects) of the levels (classes), and the class
> hierarchy would map to the levels. This makes the object hierarchy
> a tree structure, but the class hierarchy would be one dimensional.
> It would be like overlaying the four boxes in the SODV paper with
> the banyan tree. The patterns of the banyan tree would be mapped
> to their correct level.
>
> (The more I think about it, the better the object oriented
> analogy seems. Maybe I'll make a formal object oriented analysis
> of Static Quality. The straight inheritance hierarchy between the
> levels would capture the inter level dependency quite beautifully.
> Anybody have any comments?)
Magnus and Maggie,
Again, BRILLIANT! Pure DQ!
May I make one suggestion, however?
Substitute the term Static Pattern of Value (SPoV) for 'Object.'
When you do this, remember that MoQ says Value (both DQ and SQ) is
co-within/interpenetrating via the Interrelationships among SPoVs, a la
Dusenberry. (See the PS example below.)
By comparison, SOM says the Value (it calls values, 'properties') or
properties are in the Objects, a la Franz Boas. It says
interrelationships are subjective and thus 'insubstantial.'
(AND,) In MoQ the 'interlevel dependency' Interrelationships are
mediated by DQ and the five sets of Pirsig's Moral Codes.
OK?
Mtty,
Doug Renselle.
PS Example: A good example I use here is the old DOS command line
interrelationship to humans as compared to the Macintosh or modern
browser Graphical User Interface (GUI). There is incredibly more Value
in the latter than in the former.
>
> Anyway, does this make any sense to you? What puzzles you might
> be that I'm talking about the *levels* as being one dimensional,
> and you're talking about *patterns* as being tree structured.
>
> Magnus
>
> --
> "I'm so full of what is right, I can't see what is good"
> N. Peart - Rush
>
> --
> post message - mailto:lilasqd@hkg.com
> unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com
> homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
>
>
-- "Now, we daily see what science is doing for us. This could not be unless it taught us something about reality; the aim of science is not things themselves, as the dogmatists in their simplicity imagine, but the relations between things; outside those relations there is no reality knowable."By Henri Poincaré, in 'Science and Hypothesis,' p. xxiv, translated from French in 1905 by J. Larmor, published 1952 by Dover Publications.
-- 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 - 16:42:55 CEST