Commenting on my Post on continuity of MOQ levels (as
opposed to discrete, not continuous) Steve writes:
"I think this project of putting the levels on a
continuum is doomed from the start because the levels
to my thinking are categorical rather than scalar."
Steve, if your thinking is correct and MOQ levels are
categorical, as opposed to scalar, why to call them
Levels in the first place?
Before starting exploring on the approach of Fuzzy
Sets to MOQ levels, I looked up the definitions of
level; just to make sure. The American Heritage Dict.,
which, I assumed, reflects the common use of words in
the US, had the following senses:
a.Relative position or rank on a scale: the local
level of government; studying at the graduate level.
b.A relative degree, as of achievement, intensity, or
concentration
2. A natural or proper position, place, or stage
3. Position along a vertical axis; height or depth
4. a.A horizontal line or plane at right angles to
the plumb.
b.The position or height of such a line or plane.
5.A flat, horizontal surface.
==========
So, if in MOQ levels we don't mean "levels" in the
ordinary, common use of the word, why not to call them
something else?
We grant to authors of fiction a free hand with words
but, when writing Philosophy, we require from them to
be careful in their choice of words. It seems to me
that using "levels" when meaning distinct categories
is an unfortunate choice; even more so if one talks
about "higher levels" dominating "lower levels".
__________________________________________________________
Sent from Yahoo! Mail - a smarter inbox http://uk.mail.yahoo.com
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/
