Horse (horse@wasted.demon.nl)
Wed, 22 Jul 1998 05:55:07 +0100
Hi Platt and Squad
>
> Do you also accept that categories are real? When you say they 'exist,' I'm
> not sure whether you mean they exist as imaginary creatures, like centaurs
> and fairies, or exist as real things like horses and butterflies. If I
> interpret Pirsig correctly, intellectual constructions are what make up the
> intellectual level and are as real as rocks, worms and words. Is this your
> understanding, too?
>
Hmmm! I suppose we could get into all sorts of ultimately self-
defeating games about existence and reality but it would serve little
purpose. When I say that catagories exist I do not mean that they
exist in the same way as a fairy or as a brick wall. A fairy is a
member of the catagory Fairies, which is subcatagory of the the
super-catagory Mythical Creatures. A horse is a member of the
catagory Horses, which is a member of the super-catagory Four-
Legged Medium Sized Mammals etc. There is a mapping between
catagories and members of catagories. The mapping can be fuzzy
or crisp. A catagory is a means of grouping together
things/concepts/ideas that are 'real' (leptons, atoms, bricks,
horses, cities or theories), things that are not 'real' (fairies,
dragons, gods, ghosts etc.) and things somewhere in between, in
order to provide a means of dividing reality into manageable chunks
and communicating ideas, amongst other things. A catagory
introduces a form of structure into the world which humans can use
for various purposes. A catagory has value, dependent upon how
well it orders things. It is a means of intellectual ordering and from
the intellectual point of view it is real. Etc. Etc. Etc. In another
sense a catagory is not 'real' as it is completely arbitrary, may not
be sufficiently inclusive or may be incorrect. Catagories become
'real' by consensus and in this sense span the dividing line
between social and intellectual patterns of value.
> Reality has no absolutes.
>
> Is that an absolute or fuzzy intellectual construction? If absolute, and if
> intellectual constructions are real, the statement contradicts itself.
>
Give me an example of something that is truly absolute.
My Concise Oxford Dictionary has a number of definitions of
Absolute:
complete, utter, perfect, unconditional, unlimited, universally valid,
not admitting exceptions.
Also under the heading Philos. it defines absolute as:
A value, standard etc. which is objective and universally valid, not
subjective or relative.
and:
That which can exist without being related to anything else.
So which is it? One of the above, all of the above a combination or
none of the above? It seems to me that if there is such a thing as
an absolute it will be so in all possible worlds, with all of the
baggage that this entails, which brings me onto:
>
> The law of identity - A is A - as a logical statement, means that this must
> be true in all possible worlds. As neither you nor I have access to all
> possible worlds the validity of the statement cannot be proven, but given a
> particular frame of reference it makes sense.
>
> Well, the frame of reference I'm most interested in and use most of the
> time is this world, and I'm happy you agree that A is A makes sense here. I
> was beginning to wonder.
>
Ah C'mon. I'm not that weird. Am I???
>
> I'm not saying that the foundations of multivalent logic are absolutely
> consistent and complete as this is contradictory (Russells Theorem I think,
> answered by Godel) but it has a higher degree of consistency and
> completeness than binary logic.
>
> Yes, I agree that multivalent logic is a higher quality intellectual
> construction than binary logic alone. I just don't want to throw out the
> baby with the bath water. When a truck is bearing down on me, binary logic
> comes in mighty handy it's either me or the truck. Also, unless you have
> the extremes represented by binary logic, you wouldn't have the gray matter
> of fuzzy logic in between. Fuzzy logic presumes binary logic; you can't
> have one without the other.
>
I agree. I'm not denying that binary logic has value - I think it has
great value and I use it often, but I also think that in many
situations, mulivalent logic has greater value can be used to
express a greater range of possibilities - like the MoQ!
> There is no such thing as an absolute truth -- ...
>
> According to the statement, the statement is not absolutely true and
> therefore I can take it with a grain of salt, which I do.
>
See above
> But absolute death, as I see it, doesn't exist only death of the person
> (intellectual and social). Everything else gets recycled.
>
> For someone who doesn't believe in absolutes you continue to make absolute
> statements, one right after another. As for death, it's 'the person' in
> this world I value (including myself), not the leftovers that get recycled
> in another.
>
Perhaps a more accurate statement would be that as far as I am
aware and according to the evidence I have seen or read, after the
cessation of respiration and brain activity the physical body
decays etc.
I accept that the 'Law' of Conservation of energy is of a high degree
of accuracy, although to say that matter is NEVER created or
destroyed is a statement that has not been proven to be true in all
possible worlds.
> So in other words we should dump MoQ in favor of SOM. SOM is well defined
> and acceptable to the majority. From what you have said above it contains
> all the absolutes and definitions necessary, in an SOM world, for the
> continuation of that SOM world. Why should the Lila Squad bother to go
> against the grain and fight for the MoQ.
>
> First, Pirsig said. "This may sound as though the purpose of the
> Metaphysics of Quality is to trash all subject-object thought, but that's
> not true." (Lila, Chap.8)
I agree with a great deal of what Pirsig says and accepted the
above some time ago. As far as I am aware I have not argued in the
past that the whole of SOM is destroyed by MoQ - it is subsumed.
This is not to say that SOM remains completely intact in all ways,
as it doesn't.
>
> Second, Pirsig said. "There are so many kinds of problem people like Rigel
> around, he thought, but the ones who go posing as moralists are the worst.
> Cost-free morals. Full of great ways for others to improve without any
> expense to themselves. There's an ego thing in there, too. They use the
> morals to make someone else look inferior and that way look better
> themselves. It doesn't matter what the moral code is -- religious morals,
> political morals, racist morals. capitalist morals, feminist morals, hippie
> morals -- they're all the same. The moral codes change but the meanness and
> the egotism stay the same." (Lila, Chap. 7) So yes, I want to continue the
> SOM world for the value it contains, and no, I didn't join the Lila Squad
> to fight for the MoQ. I'm not out to change the world. I don't pretend to
> know what's better for other people, except freedom from people out to
> change the world. I don't want to become another Rigel. Explain yes, fight
> no.
>
What you seem to be arguing above is that moral relativism is
acceptable - I can think of a few people on the Squad who would
disagree. My own belief is that each personal view of the world has
it's own merits but fails to be completely correct (my own included)
as by definition a personal view is how that person experiences and
relates to the world. However, some views are better than others in
that they explain more and relate what they explain to what we can
experience in a better fashion. The MoQ falls into the catagory of
explanations of the world (or reality or whatever appropriate word
you choose) and it is my belief that this is a better explanation
than has previously 'existed'.
I joined the Lila Squad for a number of reasons - to contribute to an
understanding of the MoQ and to pass the results of that
contribution to the world among them. I don't need to fight for the
MoQ in the sense that I need to metephorically batter others into
conforming to my beliefs. But the MoQ as I see it is a more
complete system than its predecessors and deserves the chance
to be recognized as such. The combative side of this is intellectual
and is a fight to prevent the huge momentum of SOM from
submerging MoQ. This is the way that many intellectual systems,
including SOM, have made their way from an initial spark of belief
to a full blown system of belief accepted by many. The MoQ is an
intellectual challenge to SOM and as such will result in an
intellectual struggle for dominance. I'm happy to join in. At the
same time I am not (I hope) abusive, patronising or condescending
towards others who do not share my view - if I have been then show
me where and when. I would say that at worst I have provoked
discussion in the sci.philosophy.meta newsgroup, but came up
short of abuse etc. Abuse and condescension are what Pirsig
seemed to be talking about in the paragraph above. Like you I wish
to explain this system but unlike you I am happy to engage in a
struggle for intellectual rights to be asserted, because they are of
higher value than social, biological and inorganic 'rights'.
>
> The rigidity of your view is exemplified by numerous categorical statements
> such as "There are no absolutes." Further, I suggest that Lila is primarily
> an SOM document, that our posts are also largely cast in SOM thought, and
> that the intellectual level is, as Bo asserts, the SOM level where A or not
> A reigns supreme.
I am always willing to assimilate new views into my thinking where
they are of higher value than those previously held. Hence the move
from SOM to MoQ. I am aware of, what I feel are shortcomings in
the MoQ as presented in Lila and argue for views of higher value (in
my opinion). I agree with some of the above regarding SOM as this
is the system within which we need to explain and the system to
which most people adhere. But the majority view is not correct
purely because it is held by the majority. A OR notA is the current
dominant view of reality which is gradually being subsumed by A
AND notA. I'm not sure that A OR notA has been an exclusive or
absolute view of the world, just some aspects of it. A AND notA
has been around for a long time, has survived well in a number of
places and is once more gaining ground over A OR notA.. At the
same time, A AND notA includes A OR not A and subsumes it.
>
> Well, I consider our discussion at least somewhat dynamic although how much
> quality is involved is questionable. Nevertheless, I enjoy it thoroughly
> which for me is a good measure of value. Looking forward to hearing from
> you again.
>
For me at least, our discussion has quality in large amounts. It
makes me examine my own views, allows me to question yours,
see some of the mistakes of my way of explanation (and of
content) and results in a great deal of pleasure. We are both
discovering things about each other and this is Dynamic Quality. It
also keeps me off the streets!!!
Hit me with your best shot Platt :)
Horse
"Making history, it turned out, was quite easy.
It was what got written down.
It was as simple as that!"
Sir Sam Vimes.
-- homepage - http://www.moq.org/lilasquad unsubscribe/queries - mailto:lilasquad@moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:28 CEST