From: abahn@comcast.net
Date: Thu Sep 11 2003 - 16:48:10 BST
Hi Yale,
Thanks, but I'd rather take the easy way out. :-)
Andy
> From: <abahn@comcast.net>
> To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
> Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 5:33 AM
> Subject: Re: MD Evolution of levels
>
>
> > Hi Yale,
> >
> > I have read your paper. Or more honestly skimmed it. You seem to want
> someone
> > on the list to confirm your belief that there is a connection between
> Pirsig and
> > your paper (fractal philosophy). Why don't you just tell us about the
> > connection instead of making us needlessly wait in suspense.
> >
> > merely suggesting,
> > Andy
> >
>
> Hi Andy, the Fractal Philosophy paper at http://yalelands.com/frph.pdf is
> meant to be read and commented upon by professional and amateur philosophers
> willing to bet some time (expend their to to hopefully get some worthwhile
> reward.)
>
> And I am sugesting that there is a lot in it about some interest aspects of
> hierarchies of levels and levels of hierarchies.
>
> Rather than keep you in suspense about where it might be sympatico with MoQ,
> permit me to reference comments by one of your memebers who actually took
> the time to read and reflect upon it, instead of looking for the easy way
> out....
>
> Dear Yale,
>
> It was yours, the article? Then my apologies for my harsh comment at the
> beginning at the post about 'the author'. Uhm, let me put it more mildly
> what I said: the old Greek philosophers used this dialogue-technique, in
> which it was true that the writer assumed rather naieve and 'stupid'
> commenters. The technique you used addresses the reader directly, which
> has the advantage that it can create a more personal touch, but in many
> cases I did't assume the stance you ascribed to your potential readers.
> And true, the recurring suggestions about the assumed stance of the
> reader kind of irritated me (which left the reader stupid and the author
> smart!). Anyhow, your style of writing was original and playful. Thus,
> the attempt had DQ, but the it didn't lead (in my humble opinion) to a
> static quality-form it potentially could have.
> ;-)
>
> All the best, Patrick.
>
>
> And...
>
>
> Dear YL,
>
> The pdf-file was interesting, although the ego-blown style of the author
> irritated me. It does have similarities with Pirsig seeing Lila. In the
> café he notices she notices that he is watching her, and she notices
> that he notices that she notices he is watching her, etc. ad infinitum.
> Like standing between two mirrors, you have a reflection of a reflection
> of a reflection. The fellow of this pdf-file applies a similar strategy.
>
> Two things I found particularly interesting:
> The first is that he uses a mathematical metaphor of the seemingly ease
> of going away from a spot: Any direction is adequate, north, west, south
> or inbetween. Finding a good alternative narrows you options
> considerably, however. The place you want to go is either north or south
> or another particular direction. What Pirsig says about the
> hippie-movement is that the hippies were good at walking away from the
> center of the western culture of the sixties- they didn't, however, know
> where to turn to. That's why the movement virtually bleeded to death.
>
> The second thing I found interesting was the notion of aming at turning
> towards turning towards something. It has a relation with the concept
> of free will. What does it mean to turn your attention to something (to
> will something)? In order to do that, you have to change your thinking
> from this to that (to the topic you want to focus on). And how do you
> initiate this change? By accelareting from some zero-point, so that you
> can accomplish an amount of changing your attention. But how do you
> start to accelerate? By starting to accelerate you acceleration. This
> leads to an obvious paradox. How is it ever possible to turn your
> attention towards something? How is free will possible? (This is a
> version of psychology's homunculi, by the way)
>
> The notion of a fractal philosophy is quite big and interesting.
> Relating such a big idea to the whole edifice of the MoQ seems to me
> daunting. Nevertheless interesting. Maybe cartesian philosophy (SOM)
> tries to zoom in on a fractal- hoping someday to see the ultimate
> building blocks! Pirsig would say: Hey, you're just going in one
> possible direction. There are others, not only by 'zooming in' but by
> staying at one level and walk around there, or better: zoom in a bit but
> going to the 'left' simultanously. (Fits into another metaphor of
> Pirsig: His idea of a chaqautua meaning to deepen the riverpaths of our
> behaviors, instead of creating new ones only to end up in one shallow
> homogenous river.)
>
>
>
>
> 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 : Thu Sep 11 2003 - 16:49:21 BST