Has anyone heard of Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe, that is,
CTMU? Developed by Chris Langan (according to some, the smartest man in
America with regards to IQ), it features a concept called telic
recursion, which is quite similar to Quality in MOQ. CTMU features the
"supertautology", which seems quite different of ordinary logical
tautologies, but analoguous to the "everything is Quality" statement
found in MOQ. The theory is difficult to formalize in a way that is
usually expected of academic theories, which again makes it resemble
MOQ, as Quality is difficult or impossible to define exactly.
Here's a paper on the subject:
http://www.megafoundation.org/CTMU/Articles/Langan_CTMU_092902.pdf
I think Langan is trying to do quite the same thing as Pirsig, but his
approach is too scientific to work as well. The problem with the
scientific approach is that he is too explicitly trying to formulate a
theory that is the truth, independent of context and beyond
falsification. There can't be such a theory (If in doubt, see:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-ontology/ ). MOQ seems to suffer
from the same problem, but to a lesser extent, because it has a less
scientific or formal approach and it actually makes some conclusions
(the hierarchy of static value patterns) that are independent of this
problem.
CTMU is quite similar to MOQ in other respects, too. It seems to involve
replacing subject-object metaphysics with some sort of a loop. Dynamic
and static quality could also be perceived as a loop structure, with
Dynamic Quality trying to "make a leap forwards" but, after that,
needing to turn itself into some static structure in order to make the
leap permanent. CTMU also rejects mind-body dualism, like MOQ.
CTMU rejects materialism altogether, while the theory of static value
patterns in MOQ could be said to correspond with emergent materialism,
but this is not explicitly stated. Whether emergent materialism is
"true" materialism is another thing.
Also, like the MOQ, CTMU does not really seem falsifiable. MOQ isn't
falsifiable, or at least any way of falsifying it, except finding a
contradiction, isn't really feasible, right? I'm not saying it's not
grounded on any empirical evidence - I'm just saying that since Pirsig
hasn't really made any statistics that would empirically justify the
static patterns of value (that Intellectual is highest, and everything
builds towards higher forms of quality), it would be a bit unfair to
expect a skeptic to have such statistics, so we could as well say that
as of now falsifying the MOQ is not feasible, except by finding a
contradiction.
What do you think of this. How are MOQ and CTMU similar or different? I
hope I got everything right here.
-T.
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
