Jonathan B. Marder (marder@agri.huji.ac.il)
Tue, 14 Jul 1998 16:40:11 +0100
Hi Horse, Platt, Keith, Ant and Squad,
Horse wrote:
[snip]
>What I have attempted to do is show that the MoQ holds within it
>what has been referred to as SOM. Pirsig has not attempted to
>destroy SOM but to show that SOM is contained within MoQ -
>subsumed if you like. . . .
I agree on this and (to Bo's dismay) said similar things before.
...
>MoQ is a fuzzification of much of the modern
>day forms of binary belief systems. Fuzzification is not a means of
>obscuring or confusing (obfuscation) but of expansion and
>clarification.
When I wrote my earlier piece about binary logic, I did consider
mentioning fuzzy logic, especially since I had already noted Horse's
interest in this from his biographical summary. I still believe that
binary logic is pervasive because it is so simple, though I agree with
Horse that it is the special case.
Fuzzy logic tends to need further development, and often simply evolves
by redundancy. Examples of redundancy are making backup copies of data,
keeping a spare tyre, substitute players at the football game. Biology
also uses redundancy extensively (redundancy in genetic codes,
multi-gene families and many other examples). This provides much greater
stability ("static latching") against random error.
...
>The MoQ, I believe, is such a process and works at all levels. It
>has made our view of reality more coherent without losing the many
>benefits that have been gained by SOM - science and technology
>being an example.
>
>Platt believes that mine and his thinking are too far apart for any
>reconciliation ...
Horse, I go along fully with your elegant way of describing MoQ.
I hope that Platt will ultimately join the consensus.
Horse's comment on my dialogue with Magnus:-
[snip]
>... the main bone of contention - what is SQ?
What has surprised me is that we seem to have considerable consensus on
DQ, much less on SQ. My observation is that SQ always involves
relativity. To extend my previous statement:
"SQ is description" . . . of the relationships of things to other
things.
I suspect that this may be the origin of our "change vs. static"
arguments, in that both are relative terms. To define the whole SQ
structure, it must be secured on points of reference called axioms.
===================================
Ant wrote:-
>SQ - our best possible view of the world
>DQ - what makes it better
>
>However, the line "our best possible view of the
>world" seems to be more applicable to just static
>intellectual patterns rather than to all the static
>patterns (from Inorganic to Intellectual).
I disagree. The 4 MoQ levels, or any other "world view" are all part of
my SQ definition above.
[snip]
>>"And I would argue that both [gravity and Newton's law of gravitation]
>>are intellectual conceptions of something we place in the inorganic
level."
>Could you please explain why you think this is so,
>Jonathan, as this statement without any FURTHER REASONING
>is pretty vague.
Firstly, let's drop the word "intellectual" from my statement. In my
dialogue with Magnus, I found the word to cause confusion. Gravity is as
we "know it" or "describe it" or "define it". It is always a conception
(pattern) which may vary in its sophistication (e.g. baby's view vs.
Einstein's).
===============================
Keith wrote:-
[snip]
>What saves Pirsig's system from irrationality is that it looks to
>experience to adjudicate our beliefs and actions. Our hypothetical New
>Ager may claim to be in touch with mystic reality in defending the
large
>crystal collection, but unless we see some floating yuppies, we can
>safely dismiss that claim, as experience does not bear out the belief.
>The Metaphysics of Quality, however, requires that every idea be tested
>against experience. This insistence on hard empirical data keeps us
from
>straying into irrational belief (that which is not borne out by
>experience), while still respecting the transcendent, nonrational
>quality of the universe.
I mostly agree with this, but would expand a bit on the "experience"
part to include also "instinct", which is Nature's way of carrying
experience forward . To quote from my previous post "For something to be
right, it has to make sense, AND also to FEEL RIGHT (Coherence of
Classical and Romantic understanding)".
[snip]
>This same problem of infinite descriptions was encountered by Pirsig
>while he was doing chemistry in college. As described in *Zen and the
>Art of Motorcycle Maintenance*, he found that he could come up with an
>arbitrary number of hypotheses to explain a given phenomenon. ...
SOM has great trouble with this, while MoQ says simply that one should
pick the BEST explanation. The requirements for something to be the best
include simplicity, consistency, elegance and utility. SOM doesn't
disagree, but looks for "objectivity" in applying the criteria.
=========================================
Donny wrote:-
>I found this as a reference to the experament I'm refering to:
>"Spooky corelations between
>seperate photons were demonstrated in an experiment at the Royal
Signals
>and Raddar Establishment in England.
Donny, I apologise for my pedantic correction to your previous
post. I do now recall similar experiments proposed or described (maybe
the
same one). The point is that QM provides a resolution of the paradox
(particle vs. wave nature of light).
========================================
Best wishes to all,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:28 CEST