Re: MD The SOL fallacy was the intelligence fallacy (was Rhetoric)

From: Case (Case@iSpots.com)
Date: Wed Oct 05 2005 - 16:38:52 BST

  • Next message: Case: "Re: MD The SOL fallacy was the intelligence fallacy (was Rhetoric)"

    [Case]
    I would say that to create ontological separations where none exist is
    rather futile.

    > With similar caveats about missing some chunks of this thread, depite
    > considerable earlier involvement ... can I just say ...
    >
    > The discretisation of the levels is a red herring - they are discrete
    > because they are the ontology chosen - their differences are "deemed"
    > to be significant and useful, that's all. It says nothing that their
    > dividing lines are fundamental and fixed in any real "out there"
    > sense, and it says nothing to limit the interactions that can occur
    > between them.
    >
    > Ian
    > On 10/5/05, Matt Kundert <pirsigaffliction@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >> Case,
    >>
    >> I mainly don't read other people's conversations these days, but every
    >> once
    >> in a while, for whatever reason (usually impulse), I take a quick look to
    >> see what's going on. We had a touch a week ago or something and it
    >> looked
    >> like we were basically saying the same thing there. Reading this post
    >> (Oct
    >> 4th to Bo), I stumbled on more that seems very similar to the kind of
    >> thing
    >> I've been going on about (like in "the cul de sac of philosophy and
    >> mysticism"). In particular, I like these lines:
    >>
    >> "I am saying the very notion that these levels are discrete from one
    >> another
    >> and that they operate independantly from one another is rubbish."
    >>
    >> Being as I haven't followed the conversation (and I don't have a lot of
    >> time
    >> to get up to speed), I'm not particularly sure how specific you're being
    >> with "these levels," but any general attack on Pirsig's notion of
    >> discreteness I can appreciate.
    >>
    >> "Discussions about our internal private worlds are not very productive
    >> because we have no basis for agreeing or disagreeing."
    >>
    >> "My knowledge of what goes on in my wife's head is totally dependant on
    >> what
    >> she tells me about it. Beyond her reports and her behavior I have have no
    >> way to independently verify the her claims."
    >>
    >> I think this is a very important realization about the lack of criteria
    >> in
    >> this area of inquiry.
    >>
    >> "Most conflate DQ and Quality. This makes no sense to me at all."
    >>
    >> The most important reason for this conflation is that Pirsig makes it. I
    >> talk about this conflation and the problems it engenders a little bit in
    >> my
    >> review of Anthony's (very old) paper at moq.org.
    >>
    >> All that being said, one suggestion I would make is actually of the
    >> dropping
    >> of the inner/outer distinction. You have to use it to a certain extent
    >> to
    >> enunciate the problems you've identified with justification of "inner
    >> states" and the like (mainly because criticisms such as the ones you're
    >> making are parasitic on the language your opponent is using), but you
    >> mentioned to Bo that you take it as a matter of principle, but I think in
    >> the long run it too will get you into trouble. In the long run, if you
    >> take
    >> the behavioristic route you've been traveling, you'll want to collapse
    >> the
    >> distinction by saying that, once something has become sufficiently
    >> complex,
    >> we are want to ascribe them what we call "inner states," which are
    >> defined
    >> as "states that we are not privy to." This is basically one of the "soft
    >> distinctions" we pragmatically make to deal with the world. That makes
    >> saying "I see the inner/outer separation as a matter of principle," as
    >> you
    >> did to Bo, a little misleading. And I have a feeling you'd be perfectly
    >> content to drop it in this sense.
    >>
    >> Matt
    >>
    >> _________________________________________________________________
    >> Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's
    >> FREE!
    >> http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    >> Mail Archives:
    >> Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    >> Nov '02 Onward -
    >> http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    >> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
    >>
    >> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    >> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
    >>
    >>
    >
    >
    >
    > MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    > Mail Archives:
    > Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    > Nov '02 Onward -
    > http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    > MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
    >
    > To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    > http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
    >
    >
    >

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    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 2.1.5 : Wed Oct 05 2005 - 17:12:28 BST