[MD] Stacks

[Magnus Berg]

Hi all

In a possibly futile attempt at bringing us to the same table so we can 
discuss the MoQ without resorting to personal assaults every now and 
then, I'd like to introduce a new tool to our philosophy toolbox.

It's called stacks and those who read Andy's and my discussion a few 
weeks ago may remember what it is. I have actually tried to explain it 
earlier, but Andy's new, and very natural, name for it was so apt that 
it might work better this time.

The term stack is used in technical contexts. Its primary use is to hide 
unnecessarily technical matters for the user of the stack. For example, 
when you make a telephone call, you have to know the specific procedure 
you need to follow to make the call. The procedure you have followed, or 
interface you have used, is the top side of the telephone stack. Under 
that interface, there are myriads of technical stuff happening. But they 
are all hidden from you as the end user and also divided into separate 
layers. Each layer is pretty thin, i.e. it uses the layer below and 
exposes an interface upward that is a little better, or easier to use, 
or whatever that particular layer is supposed to do. One layer is for 
example used to hide the fact that a call can be routed using several 
different hardware, such as GSM, land line, satellite, and so on. Once 
we get above that layer, we can disregard such matters and concentrate 
on other things.

Such a stack is pretty much like the static levels of the MoQ. One level 
uses the level below and then exposes something new to the level above 
so the next level can do better and more dynamic things.

Pirsig also mentions such layers in Lila where he talks about a 
computer's different abstraction layers. From the lower end, everything 
is just electrical currents and voltage levels producing the so called 
flip-flops. But from the top side, those flip-flips are the most basic 
stuff that are used to make advanced software.

Ok, I've already said that such a stack is pretty much like the static 
levels, or rather, the static levels can be described as a stack. So what?

Well, here comes the fun part. There are pretty many level stacks being 
used here on MD.

- But there are only *one* set of levels, I hear the choir protest.

Yes, and no. There is one set of level descriptions presented in Lila, 
and when we talk about them, we talk about *the* inorganic level, and 
*the* intellectual and so on. But if we look closely at the text in 
Lila, we see a different picture. For example, in chapter 8 there's a 
very clear example of inorganic patterns in the form of iron filings and 
magnets:

"Iron filings value movement toward a magnet"

There's no human involvement here, there's only the iron filings and the 
magnet. Nobody is watching it, so there's no human observer. The iron 
filings are the subject that values movement towards the object, the 
magnet. It's pure inorganic patterns having some quality time with each 
other. This inorganic level we see here is the inorganic level in the 
stack I'd like to call "the universal stack". In this stack, humans are 
(more or less) the end result, the top notch, just like the flip-flops 
inside the computer in Lila.

However, sometimes Pirsig uses another stack that I'd like to call "the 
human perspective stack". For example when he discusses the Victorian 
moral codes, he describes them as social patterns. But they are social 
patterns only if viewed from a human perspective. On the other hand, he 
also calls "collective organization of cells into metazoan societies 
called plants and animals" social patterns. But such social patterns are 
not social from the human perspective stack, but they *are* from the 
universal stack.

Are there more stacks?

Yes, You can for example find one stack inside a computer. The inorganic 
level in a computer is not made of atoms and molecules, but by ones and 
zeros. The laws of nature doesn't include gravity and electromagnetism 
but only boolean logic such as and, or, not, etc. Computer viruses are a 
very simple form of biological patterns built using those ones, zeros 
and computer logic.



What's the point?

The point is to be able to recognize which stack each of us is using, 
and then adapt one's argument when discussing the MoQ with someone else. 
When you get to know these different stacks, it becomes pretty clear who 
is primarily using which stack.

For example, the SOL people are, I think, exclusively using what I call 
the human perspective stack. It even goes so far as to subsume the 
entire universal stack into their intellectual level. But as we can see 
here, it's actually not SOM they are subsuming, it's the universal stack.

For myself, I'm almost always using the universal stack. I'm trying to 
discuss matters from the human perspective as well, but it mostly ends 
up in a disagreement when I try to show some aspect of the level from 
some other stack. It was such a relief to discuss this with Andy because 
we could both move very easily between stacks without having to yell at 
each other. If more people could do the same, we'd be having a great 
time here very soon.

The computer stack is of somewhat limited use here since there aren't 
that many here who are fluent in boolean logic and can understand what 
it means to use that instead of our physical laws.

Another cool thing about these stacks is that it gives us an opportunity 
to examine the levels much more, and to really see if they can stand the 
pressure from being tried out in every imaginable way. For example, the 
inorganic level in the universal stack are built using atoms and our 
physical laws, but the inorganic level in a computer is built using a 
completely different set of stuff and laws. Can we define an inorganic 
level that is general enough to support both of these stacks (and every 
other stack we can find, or imagine)? If we can, the MoQ would truly 
deserve the name meta-physics, because it would support not just one, 
but any physics.

Perhaps Andy has some things to add here? I'm sure there are lots of fun 
stuff to add about stacks and how to use them.

	Magnus