Horse,
- I'm not imposing a compositional relationship on the MOQ that isn't
really there, as you think I am. I'm proposing one that is nearly there
already. The important problem is that people confuse the social and
intellectual levels. These levels are confused because, in my view, they
are too close to each other on Pirsig's evolutionary scale. I'm suggesting
this would have been remedied if the compositional theme were carried
through. Whether this was Pirsig's intent or not is really secondary.
Thinking in 'compositional' terms is not what causes me to see a new
problem, but rather to see a solution to an existing one.
- You still haven't explained what "composed of" means in the MOQ sense?
All you've said is that it's obviously different. I'm dying to know, Horse.
- Please explain how your alternative model "that is guided by a 'patterns
of value' relationship provides even greater beauty with it's Qualitative
flavour of betterness" would help determine where to place the levels.
- You are correct that there is "no rule which states that what emerges
from an evolutionary model must be composed of items at an earlier
evolutionary level". I'm not contending or suggesting that the MOQ
violated one of its rules. I'm suggesting an alternative design (which
won't be accepted).
- My reference to induction here was suggestive of its meaning in
mathematics, not its broader meaning in science. But clearly I'm not doing
math (or science) here. It's news to me that induction is no longer the
dominant scientific model.
- You said something I wrote was an example of something "commonly known
as a strawman". Forgive me, but you wouldn't know the difference between
a strawman and a tin man. Please re-read Struan's post about its rather
specific meaning. There is a difference between an honest misinterpretation
and a conscious oversimplification. In this case, I prefaced my statements
with conditions that these would be true only if this is what you meant.
- Pirsig seems to have chosen the levels as if they were axioms and then
noticed the opposition between them as an afterthought, and then wrongly
believed they affirmed his choices, in chapter 12.
- You deny that any of the levels have a compositional relationship with
its neighbor, your reasoning being that hierarchical relationships are not
the same as compositional ones. This is true but how is it an argument?
- You point out that birds are not composed of dinosaurs, which is true.
There are many examples of a thing that does not have a compositional
relationship with another thing yet evolves from it, like your dinosaurs
and birds. So what. What's your point?
- The fact is that at some key junctures along evolution's timeline,
relationships exist between evolved entities that are primarily
compositional in nature, and the thing so composed stands out as a
radically new "thing", as water is from hydrogen and oxygen, or as a clan
is from a group of individuals. Once generalized these can form the basis
for the definition of the levels.
Glenn
__________________________________________________________________
Your favorite stores, helpful shopping tools and great gift ideas. Experience the convenience of buying online with Shop@Netscape! http://shopnow.netscape.com/
Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Mail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:09 BST