Jorge: just a cautionary note: When talking about well defined systems regarding the question of energy absorbed or released by the system, I was talking about systems as in Thermodynamics and not so much 'systems of thought' .
[Krimel] Setting aside for a moment that Thermodynamics is a 'system of thought'. I think my point is that the MoQ applies about the same to both. Rather like Dawkin's use of memes to expand evolutionary principles into the realm of ideas. Despite Pirsig's dreadful teleological take on evolution, the MoQ in my view is about how static patterns form and persist in a changeable an uncertain environment regardless of whether that environment is 'real', virtual or imaginary. [Jorge] In principle, such systems can be far better specified than systems of thought. That said, your point still holds: the system does not define its elements (components?) or its boundaries; it is the person that designs the system the one that decides what is going to be inside it and what is left in "environment" or "surroundings", which variables are included and so on. [Krimel] To the extent that a system deals with patterns that can be experienced consistently by multiple observers, precision is at a premium. This is the only sense in which 'objectivity' has meaning for me. Objectivity is the intersection of independent subjective sets. Mathematics and science are powerful to the extent that they maximize this intersection. As Pirsig notes mathematical ideas, to the extent that they are understood make subjective differences in their experience largely irrelevant. [Jorge] Just to be in the safe side and be sure we are talking of the same thing, by "system of thought" you mean the likes of Marxism, Catholicism, Positivism, etc.? [Krimel] Yes, or Discordianism, Buddhism, or paranoia. They are means to the end of making uncertainty tolerable. We judge them according to how well they serve this function. Krimel earlier: Uncertainty (the undefined) can not be undone. It can only be managed. Jorge: Quite so. But if I may amplify? Uncertainty does not arise solely from difficulties in definition but also stems from difficulties in predicting the outcome of a certain process (the outcome of a game of poker for instance). I interpret your sentences above in the sense that, for an actual process, whose result is, to some degree, uncertain, we cannot ignore (undo?) uncertainty but only manage it? If it were so (and correct me if I misread you) an aim of Science, as a system of thought, is to minimize uncertainty, whereas Art, as a system of thought, manages uncertainty by "playing with" it and does not strive to minimize it. [Krimel] My point is that uncertainty is endemic and ubiquitous. Its sources are legion. I am not sure how Art plays into this. I tend to see it as having emotional rather than 'rational' appeal. Having said this, I would agree with Pirsig that our judgments on both are ultimately esthetic. But this would involve a lengthy discussion of the distinction between thought and emotion. Jorge: Agreed that any definition, by its very nature, is bound to exclude something potentially important. However, I did not say that Quality cannot be defined; anything can be defined, I said that it 'resists definition' meaning that it's not easy for us to formulate a good definition, so does Art by the way. [Krimel] But Pirsig does set up Quality as undefined. My comments were directed at this. Otherwise I suspect we are on the same page. Jorge: I cut here and leave the rest for tomorrow. The second part is to be longer than this one. [Krimel] I look forward to it. 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/
