Hi Glenn
On 5 Apr 2002 at 0:40, Glenn Bradford wrote:
> - 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.
The compositional problem occurs when you try and express MoQ structure in (and on)
SOM terms. Under a SOM I (Horse) am little more than a bunch of atoms because that
is what Horse is resolved into. Similarly, my mind and my brain are the same thing, I
have a body but no 'soul' (and I don't mean this in any religious sense), there is no value
attached to Horse because value is not measureable and thus irrelevant. In fact, for
many of this persuasion even the idea of a Metaphysics is non-sensical as nothing can
be seen to come before physics/matter in any way. So what you (and others) appear to
be seeing as a copositional relationship (as far as I can tell) is the superimposition of
something which is incorrect under the MoQ.
That there is confusion between the Social and Intellectual levels is hardly surprising
considering how recent is the emergence of Intellectual value from Social value and the
momentum possessed by Social value.
> 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.
I'd be happy to hear about it.
> 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.
Following on from the above, in MoQ terms what you would call composed of, I would
refer to as created from. Rather than being the sum of my component atoms, my
'component atoms' are created by Inorganic patterns of Value. The interaction and
'combination' of these Inorganic patterns of value result in the emergence of Biological
patterns of Value. That they are related in a hierarchical/evolutionary sense does not
mean that one is composed of the other. The same goes for the other static levels.
Additionally there is DQ to consider.
The "composed of" to which you refer is (or seems to be) a mechanistic/reductionist
approach - but if this is not so then please explain otherwise.
>
> - 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.
Order is better than Chaos
Life is better than Death
Together is better than Alone
Reason is better than Dogma
> - 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).
How are we to know unless you spill the beans (or did you and I missed it)? So slap it
down for all of us to see and criticise.
> - 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 should read more Popper then, as well as Lakatos, Kuhn etc. The inductivist (from
induction) approach was seen as problematic many years back and superceded by
falsification which was superceded by structures and paradigms etc. I'm sure inductivism
(or inductivists) are still fighting their case but I was under the impression that things
had moved on from an approach which allows a single counter-example to destroy an
entire 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.
Tin Man - Character from the Wizard of Oz
Strawman - A caricature of your opponents view set up simply so you can knock it down.
Sometimes it is a deliberate ploy; in which case it is a disreputable form of rhetoric.
More often it involves a degree of wishful thinking stemming from a widespread
reluctance to attribute great intelligence or subtlety to someone with whom you
disagree. Over-confidence in you own position may lead you to treat dissenting views as
easy targets when in fact they may be more complex and resistant to simple attacks.
(Warburton - Thinking from A to Z)
The problem is Glenn that when you start assuming that I mean something which I do
not, you are indulging in wishful thinking as you have not discussed what I think
sufficiently well. If it is an honest misinterpretation then fair enough and please accept
my apologies but please don't insult my intelligence by further assuming that I don't
know what a strawman is.
And as to why I need Struan's opinion.... !
>
> - 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.
In chapter 12 Pirsig uses an analogy of computer hierarchy to explain the levels and
then expands on various reasons why value is not seen as a better system of
explanation and why it has been passed over previously. Maybe it is my interpretation of
chapter 12 but I can't see why you have the opinion expressed above based on this
chapter. Care to enlighten me, preferably with quotes (in context).
And while we're about a Chapter 12 here's a few quotes from which I think may say
something about Pirsigs view on 'composed of':
"Although each higher level is built on a lower one it is not an extension of that lower
level. Quite the contrary."
"Certainly the novel cannot exist in the computer without a parallel pattern of voltages to
support it. But that does not mean that the novel is an expression or property of those
voltages. It doesn't have to exist in any electronic circuits at all. It can also reside in
magnetic domains on a disk or a drum or a tape, but again it is not composed of
magnetic domains nor is it possessed by them. It can reside in a notebook but it is not
composed of or possessed by the ink and paper. It can reside in the brain of a
programmer, but even here it is neither composed of this brain nor possessed by it."
In fact, a cursory glance through chapter 12 shows endless examples that the
classical/mechanistic (SOM) view of 'composed of' that you appear to advocate, is
nothing like Pirsigs view at all. Hopefully I haven't misinterpreted what you mean.
> - 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?
See above
> - 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 same one that I've been making all along.
> - 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.
Water is still an inorganic pattern of value.
Individuals are not biological patterns of value.
A clan is not merely an aggregation of individuals or even an aggregation of biological
patterns of value. Nor is it composed of either individuals or biological patterns of value.
Perhaps this is where you are going wrong.
Horse
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