Platt Holden (pholden@worldnet.att.net)
Fri, 17 Jul 1998 18:31:20 +0100
Hi Horse and LS:
HORSE:
"Fuzzification isn't just about increasing the number of variables that can
be used, it is a means of making a system more coherent in terms of
language and value. It destroys the idea that something is one thing or
another."
On the contrary, the last time I looked the idea that something is one
thing or another is very much alive and well. A chair is still not a house,
a car is not a cat, a Platt is not a Horse. Unless we make and maintain
such clear, unfuzzy distinctions, our experience would become totally
incoherent. We would live in a constant state of doubt, unable to act, even
in the face of a clear and present danger. The law of identity, A is A, is
necessary for survival. Even a slug must distinguish unfuzzily between
edible and not edible, friend and foe.
HORSE:
"So by fuzzification (or whatever equivalent phrase you wish to use) there
are two extremes (0 = no value, 1 = maximum value) and a whole bunch of
values in between. But the idea that something is or is not has
disappeared. Of course, this doesn't mean that extremes do not exist, at
least in terms of intellectual constructs."
The idea that something is or is not has disappeared? I counted 31 uses of
is, is not and other forms of the verb to be in your post. Hardly a
disappearance act I'd say. If you reply that forms of the verb to be are
just intellectual constructs and not real, you pretty much wipe out
Pirsig's intellectual level.
HORSE:
"Binary logic is ok in some forms of computing (although there is a move
towards fuzzy processors and logic for some uses) but it fails miserably in
the non-digital world. Binary logic has value for sure, but fuzzy logic has
greater value."
Well, that's just your subjective opinion isn't it? Who is to say which has
the greater value? I wouldn't consider binary logic a miserable failure in
the light of a 2000 year history of modern civilization predominated by
such logic. ("We hold these truths to be self-evident …" E= mc2, etc.)
HORSE:
"So is the PERSON dead or not? There is a continuity of degree to which
something is alive. Intellectual and social patterns may die before
biological patterns die. Biological patterns may decay into inorganic
patterns which then rise again as part of another biological pattern. So at
what point can you say that something is completely and utterly dead in
every sense of the word."
That's easy. When I see a body lying in a casket at the undertaker's, I say
the person is completely and utterly dead. In your fuzzy view, it almost
seems as if death is really not so bad after all. I must admit such a view
frightens me. I pray no one in a position of power will wonder as you do,
"Is the person dead or not?"
Actually I agree with you that a lot of what we experience can be
characterized as fuzzy. In Pirsigian terms, each higher level appeared to
increase the fuzzy factor, but the intellectual level reversed the process
with its insistence on definition and dialectic. I quote from Lila, chapter
9:
"In his book Phaedrus had tried to save Quality from metaphysics by
refusing to define it, by placing it outside the dialectical chess board.
Anything that is undefined is outside metaphysics, since metaphysics can
only function with defined terms. If you can't define it you can't argue
about it."
And that would be a disaster for the Lila Squad.
Platt
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:28 CEST