Arlo,
[Tuukka]
I did not understand what part of the MOQ do you find as recursive, and how.
[Arlo]
Recursiveness is not a function of a 'part' of the MOQ, it is a unavoidable feature of
all symbolic systems. A language (formal or informal) sufficiently powerful enough to
describe experience will necessarily contain self-reference/recursion. This was the
problem Pirsig found when he "made the scientific method the object of analysis
itself", and what you are finding when you 'apply the MOQ to itself'.
Tuukka:
Ahh, so this is something like the Chomsky universal grammar thing.
Your specific difficulty in saying the MOQ can't be an intellectual pattern
because it describes a level called 'intellectual patterns' is this exact same
form of recursion. You seem to think you need to 'back out' or 'back up' and
this will make the recursion go away. It won't. What it leads to is simply
endless regress.
Tuukka:
My argument is not that the MOQ can't be an intellectual pattern. I may
have changed my argument at some point during this discussion, but it
was earlier than one message ago.
I think this is what Goedel was saying when he said (paraphrased) "All consistent axiomatic
formulations of number theory include undecidable propositions". In this case, the question
could be paraphrased using Russell's paradox, "Does a set containing all sets contain
itself?" (which is exactly your stated problem).
Hofstadter is great here because not only is he a mathematician, but he ties
this inherent recursion to multiple forms of 'art'; painting, music, koans, and
storytelling. You can't avoid it. You can't define it away. You can't invent
more and more powerful formal systems in hopes of creating one that is not
recursive.
Tuukka:
I've read a bunch of Hofstadter. Thanks for telling me this, although I
didn't yet learn anything new - maybe a new way of expressing something
I already knew, though.
Arlo:
For example, if we start with the axiom that the fundamental division of
experience is DQ/sq, and we subdivide sq into i/b/s/i patterns of value.
Then we say, as you propose, that this description is not part of the initial system
(DQ/sq), so we redescribe the system as DQ/sq/MOQ, then we can ask, on what level is this
new description? It can't be on the "MOQ" level, since it contains the MOQ! So
we call this new description mMOQ (metaMOQ) and now we have redescribed the system as
DQ/sq/MOQ/mMOQ. Of course now we can ask, on what level is this meta-MOQ? It can't be on
the meta-MOQ level since it contains the meta-MOQ level!
As soon as you redefine the system to add a 'back up' container, you've in
effect just created a definition that 'contains' that container!
Tuukka:
I see what you mean quite well. It doesn't apply to my work. I know
exactly what you're talking about, and that it's a stupid thing to do,
and that's not what I'm doing. I just found it misleading that Pirsig
said the MOQ is an intellectual pattern, as if it were nothing besides
that. The problem is not that the MOQ is an intellectual pattern. The
problem *was* (but is no more, as it is already sorted out) that I
interpreted Pirsig to mean the MOQ does not manifest on the other
levels. But by this I don't mean the MOQ is a metatheory of the levels
or some ontological category of its own.
In saying that the MOQ = sq, you are committing a second error, as I've said, and that is conflating the description
with the thing-described. Its akin to saying "the menu = the food because it describes the food". The
MOQ-menu (intellectual pattern) is not the Broccoli-SQ (biological pattern) because it describes it. By saying that
"the MOQ manifests on every level", you directly confusing "the metaphysics OF Quality" with
"Quality". You continue this error below.
Tuukka:
I never claimed the MOQ = sq. Chill out, man. You're reading all sorts
of things into my messages.
[Tuukka]
A potato does manifest as inorganic value (chemical compounds), biological value (taste,
nutrition), social value (see van Gogh's "Potato eaters" - potatoes were the
food of the poor back then) and intellectual value (biological taxonomies regarding
potatoes, the evolution of the potato plant, etc.) So there's no reason to insist, that
potatoes are exclusively biological value.
[Arlo]
Here you've conflated, say, the economic value (social pattern) of a potato
with the organic construction (biological pattern) of the potato. This is not
the potato manifesting as a social pattern, this is a social pattern
(economics/trade) controlling a biological pattern (potatoes).
Tuukka:
Why would you like to think like that?
You are correct in saying that "Quality" is manifest on every level, this is the "inorganic pattern OF
Quality", "biological pattern OF Quality" and on that note you could say that the potato is a
manifestation of Quality and the economics around distribution are manifestations of Quality, and the taxonomies we
create are manifestations of Quality, but they are NOT manifestations of "the MOQ" nor are they
manifestations of a potato.
Tuukka:
I never said Quality manifests on every level, and I find that statement
to convey no analytic meaning, as Quality cannot be determined to have
any definite properties. While I agree that the inorganic pattern is not
a manifestation of a potato, I never said that either.
What do you mean by saying a taxonomy is not a manifestation of the MOQ?
What would the negation of that statement mean? Would it mean the weird
sq/DQ/MOQ thing you already refuted?
Arlo
I'm going to back out a bit and let others chime in as they wish here. I think
I am just going to be repeating myself, maybe someone else will have something
useful to add.
Tuukka
Well, you are a bit. But the first few messages were good.
Arlo
And as you mentioned, you may be talking about your own metaphysical system, in
which case I have no familiarity to comment. If you want to define a potato as
a social pattern (among other types of patterns), you most certainly can.
Tuukka
Gee, thanks.
Tuukka
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
