David, don't really see any "confusion" Yes, not entirely avoidable, and useful (as I said) but to be avoided when unnecessary, or when less important than some other breakdown.
Yes, not unimportant, but important only to how sq is broken down (as you say). Yes, a matter of the choice of how quality is broken down, but that is fundamentally what DQ / Sq is about, more important in the MoQ world. A "second choice" of available breakdowns. I actually think we're saying the same thing, when you say "how sq is broken down", and I say "how SOMism breaks things down". SOMism is contained within static patterns within the MoQ Useful, as I said, but part of the risk / trap of over emphasising a focus on objectification in the sq world, and focussing on objects that are not actually part of the world of real experience at the level of patterning & dynamism relevant to the problem at hand (the homework assignment in Pinker's example). Misplaced objectivity. Important to understand, but use with caution - as my Dennett example said. I think we're done ? Ian What's so funny 'bout ... On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 6:00 AM, David Harding <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Ian, > > I see the confusion now. I do not think that reductionism is something > restricted to SOM. Reductionism is simply the reduction of all quality to > static quality. It is the choice to break quality up a certain way. All > static quality is the result of reductionism. Therefore I see reductionism as > something unavoidable and important. > > What do you think? > > On Thursday, 7 April 2011 at 6:26 PM, Ian Glendinning wrote: >> Probably best if I use an example David (H). >> >> I like Steven Pinker's "The genes ate my homework" example. >> >> Reductionism is OK as part of the explanatory process, the process of >> understanding and arriving at explanations. >> The history of dog evolution and dog genes definitely have something >> to do with why dogs chew things they get hold of, and the chemistry of >> their DNA is behind that somewhere. The "full" SOMist / reductionist >> explanation invloves a great stack of things right back to quarks and >> strings and fundamental physical laws in this world. >> >> But it's unlikely our Pirsigian English teacher would accept the >> "genes" excuse as an "explanation" for why you're not handing in your >> assignment. Am I right ? He'd probably expect your explanation to >> involve some socio-intellectual patterns. >> >> PS Nice move with the Hamish Essentialism thread. >> I wish I had time to watch ;-) >> >> Ian >> What's so funny 'bout ... >> >> On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 10:54 PM, David Harding <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > Hi Ian, >> >> > > Reductionism is OK as part of the >> > > explanatory process, but not as the answer, the explanation itself - >> > > eg to a question of definition for example. >> > >> > Can you please rephrase this concluding sentence? I am having trouble >> > understanding exactly what you mean. >> > 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/md/archives.html >> 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/md/archives.html >> > 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/md/archives.html > 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/md/archives.html
