Hi Peter, I like Pinker too, and I've seen software thinking evolve from object orientation to service orientation ..
Just one observation on the subject at hand ... S/O Logic as "the basis" for "the intellect" I'd say, and have said, yes, the basis of "GOF Intellect" historically / in evolutionary terms ... but intellect is not limited to that kind of S/O thinking, forever. Ian On Dec 19, 2007 10:09 AM, Peter Corteen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Steve and Bo, > > I listened to a tape of 'The Language Instinct' by Steven Pinker the other > day. One section brought home to me that subject/object logic is the basis > of the intellect. Pinker shows how a dumb machine can perform logical > deductions; that given two sentences: 'Socrates is a man' and 'All men are > mortal' a mechanical apparatus can move the words around to produce: > 'Therefore Socrates is mortal'. That apparatus can always make correct > logical deductions given two sentences in the appropriate form. > > There is a much more sophisticated apparatus that we can even have simple > conversations with and that is freely available to us from the internet - > the Emacs Psychiatrist. However it must be said a human can quickly confound > the program. Nevertheless these machines do show that symbol manipulation > can account for what we call thinking. In programming an algorithm or series > of functional steps can be treated as an object, even a mind can be > considered as an object. > > As a software entwickler I should have seen these connection years ago but > missed it in my distracted lifestyle. > > -Peter > > > On 19/12/2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Hi Steve > > > > 17 Dec. you cited yours truly > > > > > > I repeat that "symbol/what's symbolized" is just one of SOM' > > > > many facets. > > > > and went on: > > > > > I don't see why this distinction is an SOM product that we'd like to > > > dissolve. I don't think it is JUST one of SOM's many facets for you. > > > It seems to be the basis of equating intellect with SOM. > > > > I wonder why you regard "symbol/what's symbolized" as special, > > but for now. > > > > > Here are a couple quotes concerning what Pirsig means by SOM: > > > > > In the SOM conception "…the universe is composed of subjects and > > > objects and anything that can't be classified as a subject or an > > > object isn't real." > > > > "Objects" in the "substance" sense isn't all of SOM, the adjective > > form is part of it, and in the most subtle ways, as in "an objective > > fact" where the fact may be an abstract. The below is from LILA. > > page 45 (digital) > > > > The defect is that subject-object science has no provision > > for morals. Subject-object science is only concerned with > > facts. Morals have no OBJECTIVE reality. (my caps) > > > > In this quote "science" is a representative for SOM and we see > > that the trouble is that morals are considered subjective and thus > > irreal. > > > > (Steve) > > > "A subject-object metaphysics is in fact a metaphysics in which the > > > first division of Quality-the first slice of undivided experience-is > > > into subjects and objects. Once you have made that slice, all of > > > human experience is supposed to fit into one of these two boxes. The > > > trouble is, it doesn't." > > > > (Bo) > > This (involuntarily) demonstrates that the opening move of > > Reality=Quality that can be split in arbitrary ways - the MOQ just > > one possibility - is invalid. Quality split the S/O way is just as > > "bad" as ordinary SOM. In other words, the opening move is > > Reality=DQ/SQ! (inside the MOQ intellect splits Quality the S/O > > way, but that's a static value) > > > > The ZAMM quote again : > > > > Anaxagoras and Parmenides had a listener named > > Socrates who carried their ideas into full fruition. What is > > essential to understand at this point is that until now there > > was no such thing as MIND and MATTER, SUBJECT and > > OBJECT, FORM and SUBSTANCE. Those divisions are > > just dialectical inventions that came later. > > > > (Steve) > > > I see mind/matter, subject/object, form/substance as equivalent > > > philosophical distinction. Here Pirsig seems to be talking about the > > > birth of Western philosophy which I don't equate with the birth of > > > the intellectual level. Do you have evidence that Pirsig means for > > > his intellectual level to have the same birthday as Western philosphy? > > > > (Bo) > > Pirsig started out wrong and the (what to become) SOL > > interpretation keeps popping up, but when that happens he > > reverts to SOM as something that intellect "invented". For > > instance this quote (LILA p.104) > > > > The intellectual level of patterns, in the historic process of > > freeing itself from its parent social level, namely the > > church, has tended to invent a myth of independence > > from the social level for its own benefit. Science and > > reason, this myth goes, come only from the objective > > world, never from the social world. The world of objects > > imposes itself upon the mind with no social mediation > > whatsoever. It is easy to see the historic reasons for this > > myth of independence. Science might never have > > survived without it. But a close examination shows it isn't > > so. > > > > The 4th. level's purpose is to free itself from the 3rd. To do so he > > says intellect has invented a myth of science and/or reason > > (which is SOM in plain text) But what is left of intellect if SOM is > > subtracted? He makes it sound as if there was an objective world > > that science could claim was its source, but intellect arrived with > > SOM that created science and all S/O's in its wake. > > > > Pirsig's focus was the situation in the sixties and seventies when > > social order deteriorated. To show that intellect is dependent on > > social stability was his agenda, but because he earlier had > > presented intellect as some neutral facility an evil (that wasn't > > intellect) was needed. > > > > > Steve: > > > These derivatives seem to refer to the problems of western philosophy > > > that Pirsig called Platypi: > > > > "In a subject-object classification of the world, Quality is in > > the same situation as that platypus. Because they can't > > classify it the experts have claimed there is something > > wrong with it. And Quality isn't the only such platypus. > > Subject-object metaphysics is characterized by herds of > > huge, dominating, monster platypi. The problems of free > > will versus determinism, of the relation of mind to matter, > > of the discontinuity of matter at the sub-atomic level, of > > the apparent purposelessness of the universe and the life > > within it are all monster platypi created by the subject- > > object metaphysics. Where it is centered around the > > subject-object metaphysics, Western philosophy can > > almost be defined as "platypus anatomy." These > > creatures that seem like such a permanent part of the > > philosophical landscape magically disappear when a good > > Metaphysics of Quality is applied." > > > > The SOM created its derivatives and platypus in parallel. I can't > > date them but with the mind/matter distinction did the "how can > > mind influence matter" paradox come to be and with the > > nurture/nature did the enigma who of the two determines human > > behavior arrived. > > > > > I disagree that "symbol/symbolized" is this sort of philosophical > > > platypus. This seems to be an important point that you'd like to make > > > in order to equate the intellectual level with SOM. What is the > > > problem with distinguishing symbols and their referrants that the MOQ > > > solves? In what way is symbol/symbolized inherently based on an > > > assumption that "the universe is composed of subjects and objects and > > > anything that can't be classified as a subject or an object isn't > > > real"? > > > > The SOM has much subtler S/O pairs. In ZAMM the development > > of SOM is seen from Socrates' Opinion/Truth to Plato's > > Appearance/Ideas and Aristotle's Form/Substance, but Pirsig > > spotted the SOM under all these phases. So I see no objection to > > the symbol/what's symbolized as an advanced S/O ...that has > > created its own platypus, namely the language/reality one. > > > > Full stop! > > > > Bo > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > > Archives: > > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
