Jonathan B. Marder (marder@agri.huji.ac.il)
Wed, 8 Jul 1998 09:04:38 +0100
Hi Magnus, Glove, Bo, Michael, Horse, Theo and Squad.
Magnus wrote:-
>So, you first intellectualise experiences, then place them in a level.
>But that separates quality, moral and value and reintroduces
>just-what-you-like-subjectivity that the MoQ was made to get rid of.
>
Let me first clarify what I mean by "intellectualise". I mean matching
experience to a pattern. Without this, the experience makes no sense and
isn't even assimilated - as if it didn't happen. This pattern then
continues to be evaluated as it is put into some hierarchy. Quality,
moral and value are all part of this evaluation as we look for the BEST
way to understand the experience
===============================================
Glove, I think, has up with something genuinely useful with the
following:-
>precession is movement, or change, within chaos, while at the same
time,
>that chaos causes the dissolution of movement, giving rise to other
>movements. ...
It was Isaac Newton who said that bodies continue moving in a straight
line with constant velocity until acted on by an extraneous force (or
words to that effect). Here we have the paradox of static vs.dynamic.Is
"constant velocity" a static or dynamic pattern? I think that this is
mostly what bothered me with Bo's Change vs. Permanence, but obviously
I failed to make the point previously.
===============================================
Bo wrote:-
>I think the simplest way of saying it is that reality i created by the
>theory - by the metaphysics, but not in the SOM-subjective sense that
>Glove hints to. Rather in the sense that the various Q-levels
>constitute reality. Once reality was only Matter, then it was
>Matter and Life. Next step was Matter, Life and Society
>and by now it consists of the four value dimensions.
I think that the real problem is that the whole MoQ is an intellectual
pattern (including all its levels).
It claims to encapsulate everything, including itself. I recall a poem
about Horace, who one day sat down and ate himself ... until all that
was
left was a stomach sitting on the floor. Such is the problem, and I
haven't the faintest idea how to solve it.
Michael wrote:-
>I cannot concurr that 'reality itself' is unreachable, that all we have
>are models ...[snip] - reality must be addressed,
>not just perceptions (models).
Here is the word "just" which Pirsig objected to in a similar
circumstance (ZAMM).
It is a prejudicial word - present *just* to demote the importance of
the word "perception" which follows.
Sojourner (a newcomer to the Squad) has been writing to me privately
that Reality is exactly what we believe it to be - I hope he follows
through with this in writing to the Squad.
I tend to agree with this view, but note that IMO this means that
reality can't be absolute. Beliefs and viewpoints change between
individuals and between societies.
Michael has taken the opposite view, that of the presocratic
philosopher, who searched for the inviolate truth, and were the first to
suggest a possible difference between reality and perceived reality.
Perhaps Hinduism saw the same split (Brahman vs. Maya).
=============================================
I now want to address another issue that has been bothering me more and
more. Socrates (or perhaps Plato) believed we could arrive at the truth
by logical discussion. He was an IDEALIST for whom there was an absolute
truth which was the absolute target. At the same time, the Sophists were
verbally promoting "the best" from their soapboxes, and their "best" was
PRAGMATIC, whatever seemed to be best.
But note, at this time, the two sides fought it out using language.
Some time back, Horse wrote:-
>There seems to be an assumption that it is NOT possible
>to express oneself clearly and
>precisely when discussing ithe MoQ or some other
>'complex' issue. This is untrue. When Theo wrote:
>"I'm convinced that the language is available to us to achieve
>recognition without the need to distort it."
>he was absolutely correct.
The pervasiveness of this view is perhaps why the Lila Squad exists!
In Athens, rhetoric lost to the dialectic because the playing field was
one of language.
The dialectic is based on exclusive dualistic relationships, or as Horse
would say "A *OR* not A".
This binary logic is immensely powerful and scaleable, as has been shown
in the digital computer. The same "binary logic" pervades our common
language. I suggest that this binary nature is inherent to language, and
this is a reason for the victory of the dialectic, not a consequence of
it.
Now I want to come back to Pirsig's initial attempt (in ZAMM) at
dividing Quality into Classical Quality (binary logic) and Romantic
Quality (non-binary). In Lila, Pirsig goes almost exclusively with CQ
language, because RQ language was too weak to further his cause.
Similarly, the Lila Squad discussion is almost entirely CQ, except when
someone throws up a colourful metaphor. As I see it, I am one of the
most CQ (uncool) people in the Squad. All this "Intellectual" patterns,
algorithms, molecular description etc. is all CQ stuff. Yet I can't deny
that RQ is a whole other pattern recognition system. I don't have to be
able to (verbally) describe a tasty dish to know that I recognise it and
like it. I don't have to EXPLAIN why I love my wife. Yet our lives are
dominated by binary decisions. Students performances are graded 51=Pass,
49=Fail. The biggest project in Biology today, the "Human Genome
Project", is based on very binary DNA sequencing. And very binary
computers control everything. Furthermore, it is getting even worse.
Just supposing I had just been speaking all these words with a sarcastic
sneer in my voice!
Now Pirsig shouts STOP. Binary logic on its own is leading to
disaster. I'm not sure who said the following, but it is appropriate
here: "Anyone can make a mistake, but it takes a computer to really
screw things up".
Binary logic is hard and uncaring, but it is also very brittle - subject
to catastrophic failure. Scratch an audio CD and you may slightly affect
the sound quality. Scratch a computer CD and it becomes useless. In the
laboratory, I use digital tools with extreme care e.g. I teach my
students to check that the volume taken up by an automatic pipette
APPEARS to be approximately right (by eye), that the trace on the chart
recorder LOOKS about right, that the result appearing on the calculator
is roughly as EXPECTED. This Quality evaluation of the data or situation
is not always easily described, but it is learned. I don't think that
this is exactly Pirsig's RQ, but there is definitely an aesthetic
aspect.
Sorry to be so long winded about that, but I wanted to get is off my
chest. I hope others can interject.
Jonathan
Jonathan B. Marder <MARDER@agri.huji.ac.il>
Department of Agricultural Botany, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Faculty of Agriculture, P.O.Box 12, Rehovot 76100, ISRAEL
Phone: +972 8 9481918 Fax: +972 8 9467763
Web page: http://www.agri.huji.ac.il/~marder
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:27 CEST