Hi Struan, Roger, David and Jolly Good Chums
On 14 Mar 99, at 12:26, Struan Hellier wrote:
> It would seem that everything is evolving to higher complexity/quality
> except for our explanations which evolve to greater simplicity/quality.
> The fact that we allow our explanations to be an exception to the rule is
> fascinating, wouldn't you agree?
It is fascinating where this is the case. I think some explanations do evolve to
greater
complexity at times, given that our knowledge is increasing exponentially, but it is
also the
case that it is sometimes the explanation that appears to make the corresponding
reality
more complex. The difference here is probably between 'simple' and 'the simplest' and
it is
the prime purpose of Ockhams Razor to weed out the garbage from the good.
The main idea is to provide the simplest explanation of our perception of increasing
complexity, as per Ockham's Razor. But as complexity in the world appears to increase,
the
explanation need not increase in similar complexity, if at all, although it _may_ do
so to
take into account new phenomena. This was why I mentioned Conway's Life and Hillis.
Extreme complexity can be an emergent property of extreme simplicity.
Or it may be that many aspects of the world do not increase in complexity at the same
rate
as our knowledge of the world. What is also fascinating is the interplay between
explanation and knowledge. Explanations can increase in complexity as our knowledge
increases until one piece of information arrives at which point the whole pack of
cards
collapses to a simple and better explanation.
But the principle of parsimony is to provide the simplest explanation and not a
simple
explanation. There's a big difference.
> At least at the intellectual level, quality and complexity are not always
> one and the same. I see no reason why, if morality can go either way in
> one level, that the same shouldn't be the case in other levels. This
> questions the whole hierarchical morality of the MoQ. Not the morality
> itself I should add, just the hierarchy.
Yes, it could be that a _simple_ hierarchical explanation is not the full answer. It
would
seem that there is the matter of feedback to take into consideration. Intellectual
value can
have an affect on the social level which can effect the intellect level and so on in a
dynamic
interplay. It would seem reasonable to make an assumption that as persons which are
constituted by all the levels and DQ, that there is constant feedback between the
levels.
This is one reason why I have stated in the past that the levels are distinct but not
discrete
and that there is an amount of overlap involved, although I will continue to give this
further consideration before accepting it as a 'fact'. If the above is the case then
it may also
be a case of the simplest explanation becoming more complex but still remaining the
simplest explanation!
On 14 Mar 99, at 5:42, David Buchanan wrote:
> Pirsig says, "The material for the MOQ...has been lying dormant within
> the culture for centuries. The best readers will pay...maximal attention
> to what I have missed. That's where the excitement is."
>
> Wish I knew where this quote was located. I'd like to see it in context.
The source of the above was a private email from Pirsig to Diana on 20th September
1997,
shortly after the Lila Squad was established, which she posted to the Squad. I don't
think
it's generally available anymore unless Magnus' search engine is still accessible from
the
MOQ site. I did reproduce the whole of the text from Pirsig in my post of Thu, 11 Mar
1999
02:25:00. So as far as I know there is no other explicit context.
> In any case, the meaning seems clear enough. Isn't he asking the reader to
> discover material that's lying dormant in the culture?
Not necessarily. He states that what he has found has been dormant in the culture but
not
that ALL of the reamainder is similarly positioned. It may well be that he was
indulging in
hyperbole. But I think it is fairly certain that he was denying Lila as the be all amd
end all of
the MOQ.
> Isn't he asking us
> to get excited about other thoughts and thinkers that can color and shape
> the MOQ? The 99 percent that's missing from Pirsig's books is whatever
> material we have bring into the mix. A forum like this is ideal for
> preventing intellectual creativity and philosophical cross-dressing. We
> have a kind of peer review process that sort of naturally eliminates
> anything that's just too wacky.
That's an interesting turn of phrase. I would have thought that a forum such as this
is ideal
for cultivating intellectual creativity. I agree that some of the more fanciful ideas
tend to be
eliminated (Fintan's MoM comes to mind) but there are certainly ideas and
interpretations
that have arisen that have been accepted as part of the MOQ.
> *Roger: I have to say that your extension and improvement of the MOQ was
> neither.
> Even if you really had a better model for the basic structure of the
> MOQ, this wouldn't be the place for it ...
Where better? This is, after all, MOQ_DISCUSS!!
> ... and it would propably be
> something other than the MOQ. It would be the MOR, the Metaphysics of
> Roger.
>From what I've read of Roger's post so far this is not the case. It is, at the least,
>an attempt
to reduce the complexity of some of the explanations of RMP. I agree with Roger that
there
is an amount of confusion in some of Pirsigs explanations.
> Not that Pirsig's word is dogma, but we all have to be talking
> about the same metaphysics here. The one we have is contentious enough.
So an attempt to reduce the contention should be welcomed.
> And I already made the case that Pirsig's quote is not a plea to extend
> or improve his ideas. The quote is an encouragement to explore ideas
> "within the culture" that were the foundation of the MOQ.
And are we not part of that culture? Surely this is a call to examine our knowledge of
our
cultures and elucidate that which we know. This is extending and improving upon what
Pirsig has written. I can't find it at the moment but there was a post from (I think)
Ant
McWatt some time back quoting a personal message from Pirsig that the MOQ values its
own extension.
> HE didn't just
> pull it out of thin air, like Roger did. :-) *This is intended to be a
> little humor in my criticism, not a personal attack.
Neither did Roger pull it out of thin air. It is all, as far as I can see, directly
from Pirsig's
texts.
On 13 Mar 99, at 13:28, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Please seriously consider RMP's request to extend the MOQ. Let's free
> ourselves from static patterns and explore higher quality patterns. I am
> challenging us all to evaluate what is good within this revised model. After
> we examine it, we can easily begin tearing it apart. At the worst, the
> exercise will help us better understand the strengths of the current model.
Roger I agree with you entirely that we should explore higher quality patterns. Some
of
what you say seems to parallel my own thoughts some time back on the confusion that
exists regarding DQ. I haven't had enough time to consider your post properly yet but
I
shall do so over the next couple of days or so.
Horse
MOQ Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
