[Magnus] Both the terms "specific points of departure" and "becomes discrete", imply some sort of border where one level ends and the other starts. But that misses the point. The point is that a *thing* can have value in more than one level.
[Case] First off sorry for misspelling your name. Don't take my questions wrong. You are offering an interesting twist here. But if this is a system of multidimensional graphing don't you still need values to plot? In your example for Ian you said (0, 0, 0, 17) for the intellectual value. I understand that you were just tossing out an example but in order for this to be really useful you would need a way to use real numbers. [Magnus] I realize you're fishing after where I think the biological level begins in terms of biological entities such as amino-acids, proteins or cells. But all those *things* have both inorganic and biological value, so they are 2 dimensional in the MoQ level space. For example, take a protein. A protein has mass and has therefore inorganic value. It also has a bunch of other inorganic values such as color, inertia, etc. But a protein has also biological value, because an animal in need of proteins will value the protein very dearly. It won't lose its inorganic values just because it has biological value, it still has the same mass, inertia and color. On the other hand, this protein has no biological value to the sulfur based life at the bottom of the Atlantic ocean. [Case] But isn't this the point? There is a continuum between the inorganic and the biological. At some point proteins begin working together in complex units. It is certainly fair to say that a cell is more biological than a virus and a virus is more biological that an amino acid etc. While you could certainly plot multiple dimensions as you suggest you would still need a way of ranking or assigning values to the variable. > [Case] > So what would this kind of graphing tell you? [Magnus] It tells me that what we usually call a *thing* (living or dead), can be more accurately described using the 4 MoQ levels than any other system of classification. Because other systems of classification usually end up contradicting itself, or placing the *thing* in several contradicting "compartments" or nodes, causing what Pirsig calls a Platypus. But since the MoQ levels are orthogonal, they can't contradict each other. It's perfectly fine to assign several types of values to a thing. [Case] But if you are just going to assign values to various characteristics how does graphing it tell you more than a simple list of characteristics? Also there are lots of taxonomic systems that don't pretend to be anything more than useful ways to organize things. The MoQ is claiming that its levels have metaphysical significance. [Magnus] I'm not very sure about this statement, but doesn't most systems of classification usually divide all objects it tries to sort into two or more piles (Pirsig talks about this somewhere, doesn't he?) Then it continues to divide those piles into smaller and smaller piles. The problem comes when you after a couple of steps encounter an object belonging to more than one pile. Because there's often an underlying assumption that every object should belong to one pile and one pile only. But of course you can plot all sorts of dimensions this way. But the point is that the MoQ static levels are organized this way. Never mind that many other systems are as well. [Case] Most classifications systems are admittedly arbitrary and the rules change to match new data. Pluto just got demoted from being a planet to being a planetoid. When the platypus was discovered a new category was created in biology. Taxonomists usually expect this. A more rigorous and powerful taxonomy was the Periodic table which actually predicted that new elements would be found to fill in the holes in the table. Particle physicists used a similar table to predict the existence of new particles. > [Case] > How did that work out for you in the old days? I keep getting told that DQ > is undefined and we are not allowed to talk about it except in warm fuzzy > terms. [Magnus] Never really had a problem with it here, but I see your point. But I don't think I commit a MoQ sin when I do. Saying that something changes doesn't say much about what it changes into, so it's still pretty fuzzy and unknown. [Case] I agree whole heartedly. In fact it seems to me the chief value of the MoQ arises not simply from that first cut into static and dynamic but from the fact the both are quantifiable; they have value. But some seem to have problems with trying to quantify DQ in any way shape or form. 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
