> I know this may sound silly, but instead of trying to be useful, I was trying to be right...
> your difficulty is approaching this from the SOM view, and you've clearly just demonstrated this in the above statement.
> So is SOM not useful or is trying to be right only applicable to SOM? Either way I don't see "clear demonstration".
> [Arlo adds]
> I was thinking in terms of the polar versus Cartesian maps. What is 'right' if it is not tied to pragmatic experience? The whole notion of 'objective truth' (which is what 'right' implies) is part of what the MOQ (what is better) leaves behind. To answer your specific questions, 'usefulness' is a category in SOM that is secondary to 'True'. I'd say "trying to be right" is nonsensical within a MOQ view, which I see as "trying to be better". Of course, 'right' when taken provisionally and contextually (like 'true' as compared to 'True') is acceptable given the parameters imposed on the term. In fact, in the MOQ if something is not 'useful' it would not exist. Existence is a function of value (which I'd say is usefulness).
> So, the pursuit of 'right' over 'useful' I see as very SOM.
My theory is not objectively right. Objective truth is just a subset of
the theory. By "right" I only mean that it does not cause trouble. I
have no arbitrary conceptions about my theory being a higher truth and
all that bullshit. Why do so many people speak to me like some baby? I'm
aeons past that way of thinking that theories should be "objectively"
true. Furthermore, this theory/metatheory issue, that is, the issue of
sq/DQ versus sq/DQ/MOQ or sq/MOQ is completely irrelevant. In maths, you
just do stuff the way you like and quit whining about whether it's
"real". If some way of expressing things is more elegant or leads to
easier calculations, and it's equivalent to another way, there's no
reason to argue whether that way or the other way is "right". I can't
believe I'm participating in this kind of a discussion. Let's just stop
this nitpicking. We could as well have an argument of whether
Hilbert-style proofs are more "real" than Gentzen-style proofs.
Ahh, so this [recursion] is something like the Chomsky universal grammar thing.
I'd say its an inevitable outcome of semiosis. "Universal" implies objectivity to me, so I don't use the word. Its like saying "if you jump of the Eiffel Tower, you will die". That does make death a 'universal grammar thing'? "Recursion" results because we are unable to 'step outside' the system, the illusion of SOM was that recursion could be overcome, that we could 'step out of the container'. But 'recursion' is also an analogy, if you stop treating it like one, you are back in SOM asking for all kinds of 'objective' definitions that are part of a 'non-recursive theory'.
Well, Chomsky used the word "universal", and I don't have any way to refer to his idea of "universal grammar" without that word. I don't mean any implications or arbitrary conceptions about universal grammar that Chomsky may have had, ie. that all natural languages adhere to it (Piraha does not). I just mean the thing Chomsky called "universal grammar". I understand your objection, but people can't speak to you about Chomsky's universal grammar if you ban the word "universal" because you dislike its meaning in some unrelated context. Furthermore, you have no reason to do so.
Fair enough. You said instead that the MOQ is manifest on all static levels, i.e., MOQ = sq. The trouble for you continues to be conflating "Quality" with "The Metaphysics of Quality". It is Quality that is manifest on all static levels, the Metaphysics of Quality is a description (analogy) of this process.
The semi-formalism "MOQ = sq" means absolutely nothing to me. You just go on and use an identity relation in an unspecified system, and expect everyone to know what it means, ie. to read your mind. I avoid the use of the concept of "Quality" anyhow. I am getting angry with you.
A taxonomy is a intellectual manifestation of Quality, not a manifestation of "the MOQ". People were doing taxonomies long before Pirsig authored the MOQ, but nobody did anything before Quality. The MOQ is Pirsig coming along and describing the process that Quality manifests (DQ->SQ).
I don't use the concept of Quality, if I can. I tend to skip statements like this. They don't have analytic meaning, but as I already get the point of the MOQ, I am only interested it refining the analytic parts. They are the only ones left for me to refine. I already got the rest, even though I can't prove that to you.
If by "MOQ = sq" you tried to refer to that, yes, I already got it. But the static part is the only one that's left for me. I'll just keep saying this until you get it. I already got the Dynamic part. I am a fucking shaman who speaks with God. Okay? Now I'm going to get back to maths, because that's where I could still use improvement.
I didn't mean that in a derogatory way. If we are both talking about Pirsig's MOQ, that is one thing, if you are telling me that in your 12 level MOQ your axiom is Y, then I have no ability to argue for or against Y, we'd be talking past each other. If you are disagreeing with Pirsig and taking a contrary position, then I lack the insight to criticize or appraise your theory.