Bodvar Skutvik (skutvik@online.no)
Wed, 27 May 1998 17:17:08 +0100
Fintan, Horse and Squad!
When spring comes to Ultima Thule we have to do outdoor repair and
maintenance so my reading of the last weeks' mail has been somewhat
superficial, and finer points may have gone me by. For instance did I
not notice Horse's distinction between A OR NOT A (SOM) and A AND NOT
A (MOQ) so when Fintan said that the latter was a definition of the
MOQ I winced.
Today's posts by Fintan I have read thoroughly and I liked
the synopsis as well as the shortcomings of SOM (and
am mightily impressed by his backing up of the definitions of
both SOM & MOQ): "Pattern Recognition Algorithm" Wow!!
> The Subject-Object Metaphysics is the assumption that the ONLY
> Subject (Pattern Recognition Algorithm) is Mind and the ONLY
> Object(Pattern) is Matter; that these two are of different substance
> and communicate by Entropy-Data from Matter to Mind.
> The Metaphysics of Quality says that Pattern Recognition
> Algorithm IS Pattern and grew from Pattern and both are products
> of Quality. They exchange Quality and Entropy-Data with each other
> across the boundaries between layers of increasing abstraction.
This might be as good as gold Fintan, but aren't we reinventing the
gunpowder over and over again? By so many ways have we reached the
conclusion that the Subject-Object division is false, but what good
does that do? Idealists and mystics has said so for ever and yet does
matter appear different from thinking about matter!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Enter the MOQ which takes leave of mysticism and whatever 'ism'
there has been. It says: "Yes, matter (Inorganic PoVs) is indeed
different from thinking about matter (Intellectual PoVs), but thy
are not separated by any mystical veil, or "really" one. THEY
ARE SEPARATED BY TWO OTHER PATTERNS OF VALUE (biology and society)
OF EQUAL IMPORTANCE AND REALITY. (I am not shouting just lacking
italics or bold types)
For Horse:
I am much impressed by your defence of the A OR NOT A definition, but
sometimes the perfect is the enemy of the good. The above is possibly
the most concentrated SOM there is, but it is a bit like the
alchemists "essence"; so rarified and esoteric that no one will
understand it outside the initiated circle. No, I still find Diana's
- or if she will accept - Theo's fusion of Diana's and Hugo's
versions as the most concise definition of SOM.
IMHO
Bo
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:15 CEST