[MD] Levels in electronic computers

[Krimel]

[Krimel]
But from an ontological standpoint the only sense we have that actually
gives us direct experience of three dimensions is touch. Constructing 3D
from sight is always a perceptual process as the information is always
presented to us on the 2D surface of our retinas.

Ron:
I think this is a bit misguided given that 2-D is a pure abstraction.
No surface is two dimensional, else there is no surface. 
This would be a good discussion regarding "points" and "lines"
This would be fun to pursue.

[Krimel]
Every geometry teacher since Euclid has had to explain that our diagrams in
math are abstractions and represent the concepts. They point to the moon.
They are not the moon.

Ron:
I think it helps to remember that first and foremost, we are dealing
with a value centered metaphysics. Personal value, not an ontological
absolute. If experience is reality the the four levels apply to personal
experience and the contexts we share, and verify  and agree apon
or disagree apon. Pirsig would state that we all share inorganic
and organic value but we do not share social and intellectual
values. The values are discreet because we they represent the good
in different contexts.

[Krimel]
A case that I think was not well made and has led to years of
misunderstanding. I think we share social and intellectual values just as
readily as we share inorganic and biological  values. I am not sure why you
think we can't. Context is always a major determinate of value and context
is always changing as are our values. If asked about context or value we can
usually supply a ready answer on the fly and often in terms of levels
created on the fly.

Ron:
 because they are variable contexts of "good" a biological good will compete
or 
conflict
with a social good. Pirsig is trying break experience down into general 
principles of being,
Four general types of value preference.

[Krimel]
I don't think this is true at all. It is a gross distortion to say that all
life is at odds with the force of gravity for example. Life as we know it
depends on the force of gravity. The fact that we stand upright and move
around does not put us at odds with gravity. The fact that birds can fly
puts them in harmony with the air not at adds with gravity. Good and bad in
this context is purely matters of prejudice and sentence construction. Whose
glass is half full and whose is half empty.