Hi Tuukka, good ... I was agreeing with Ant's point - not concerning myself with any disagreement you may have had with Arlo.
Disagreements are ten-a-penny. Ian On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 10:28 AM, Tuukka Virtaperko <m...@tuukkavirtaperko.net> wrote: > Ant, Ian: > > >>> Ant McWatt comments: >>> >>> Arlo, >>> >>> Cheers for this post. I found it a good summary of "recursiveness". I >>> have generally found Tuukka's comments in this thread rather inane (too >>> Dynamic?) but, no matter, they've elicited some helpful (and patient!) >>> responses from you. >>> >>> If I remember correctly it strikes me that it was this avoidance of (or >>> confusion about) recursiveness (within the MOQ) that got Bodvar Skutvik on >>> this "SOM equals the Intellectual level of the MOQ" idea in the first place. >>> Not that this issue holds any particular interest for me but maybe this is a >>> question that Bodvar should look into i.e. if you accept that "recursiveness >>> is an unavoidable feature of all symbolic systems", does this make the >>> SOLAQI redundant? >>> >>> Best wishes, >>> >>> Anthony > > > > Ian said: > > Absolutely Ant. The acceptance (or avoidance) of recursion has been my > recurring (!) issue with freezing the whole intellectual level as one > static pattern (a la Bo). Tuukka you must recall that it was your > original interest in recursive (but constructive) patterns that I > responded to with a Hofstadter reference. > > > > > Tuukka: > > In the Hofstadter book, recursion was expressed formally. This recursion > Arlo was talking about was not. I was hoping to hear either a formal > definition or a reason why one is not possible. I only became angry when > Arlo portrayed me as an adherent of SOM because of that, instead of saying > he doesn't have a formal definition. It would have been okay to not have > one. What Arlo did was to conflate the metaphysician with his methods. If > you've read the Bible, my metaphor of the menu and the golden calf doesn't > make any less sense that Pirsig's original metaphor. > > In any case, I disagree with the SOL idea that SOM is the intellectual > level. Seems like the intention of SOL is to define the concepts of > "subjective" and "false" as equivalent, and "objective" and "true" as > equivalent, and that's just a waste of concepts. > > 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 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
