[MD] Stacks

[Andy Skelton]

I'm not sure how far this "stacks" thing will go, but I like it. I
think it will prove a good static latching point, something to help us
set aside contentious details and focus on the big picture.

Magnus:
> 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.

Yes, lots and lots. Krimel seems to have some thoughts in common:

Krimel on Levels in electronic computers:
"I think the levels in the MoQ are a mess and Andy nailed them correctly
earlier today with a comment something like we create levels on the fly. I
have used that terminology several times in the past. Pirsig's claims that
"level" are discrete and that they have conflict are just obviously false.
Like all systems of levels they may have heuristic value, they kind of work
as rules of thumb but they all break down when you try to put too much
weight on them. Ten years of haggling ought to convince anyone that Pirsig's
levels are particularly brittle in this respect."

Pirsig's MoQ stack is a very good stack. It makes a lot of sense. We
can do a lot with it. (I used it last night to explain to people with
no familiarity with MoQ my opinion on two different subjects: academia
and law.) If we restricted our conversation to only that stack, we
could have an unbounded number of conversations over many years.

However, many more conversations are possible when you can package
Pirsig's levels as a stack, set that aside, and go to work with other
stacks.

The first step to understanding stacks in general is to look at what
makes Pirsig's stack tick. Forget how he arrived at them and
concentrate on what they compose together: a corpus of patterns
arranged according to Pirsig's conception of evolution.

Pirsig is the measure of all things in Pirsig's stack. He sorted
patterns into a gradient scale of his own invention and he decided
where to slice his scale into distinct levels. There is nothing
innately true about the levels of Pirsig's MoQ stack. This is not
obvious only because his levels seem to make perfect sense within our
common context. They jibe with our separate viewpoints, especially
after we are indoctrinated into the Dynamic/static dichotomy, so we
adopt them easily.

Can we just as easily set aside Pirsig's stack and each be the measure
of our own circumstances? Try to work out another way to sort patterns
into a different scale, then slice your scale into any number of
levels---four is not a necessary number---or just leave it as a
continuum. Then try to put your new stack (or continuum) to work.

Probably there are other ways to approach the production of stacks.
This should be illustrated by examples from direct experience. I don't
have anything to fill that space right now.

Andy