[MD] Moving On

[Tuukka Virtaperko]

Mark, Ian, all,


>
>
>> Mark:
>>
>> As I have stated in previous posts, it is very difficult to
>> distinguish between the conceptual and the preconceptual.  It would
>> appear that the line is drawn by the social level.  That is, once we
>> share something it becomes "conceptual".
>
> Tuukka:
> If we use ZAMM's definitions of "conceptuality" and 
> "preconceptuality", they mean "classical quality" and "romantic 
> quality", respectively.
>
> If we use LILA's definitions of "conceptuality" and 
> "preconceptuality", they mean "static quality" and "Dynamic Quality", 
> respectively.
>
> We ought not have contradictory definitions for concepts, because in 
> real life discussions we will not remember to specify whether we are 
> speaking the language of ZAMM or the language of LILA.
>
> Therefore, I propose that we define "conceptual" as "classic quality". 
> Set theoretically, such a definition would be an intersection of the 
> different notions of conceptuality in ZAMM and LILA. "Preconceptual" 
> could well mean "not classical quality", that is, romantic quality and 
> Dynamic Quality.
>
> However, regardless of whether we use ZAMM's or LILA's terminology, I 
> find that your proposal here is, frankly, not well in accordance with 
> the MOQ. The patterns, which are static quality, are conceptual with 
> regards to their classic part, but preconceptual with regards to their 
> romantic part. If they were only conceptual, they would not refer to 
> any observable phenomena, and the MOQ would thus not be empiricist. If 
> they were only preconceptual, we could not discuss them.
>
>


Tuukka:

Pirsig's MOQ does not offer an analytic way of differentiating between 
the conceptual and preconceptual. It only emphasizes, that there is a 
difference. This message just has to be somehow "understood". My way of 
expressing the same thing analytically has been to create conceptual 
categories that are demonstrably different, but share the same 
preconceptual subject matter. If you like to contemplate these kind of 
things, you can take a look at this diagram:

http://www.moq.fi/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/circlemap.png

The categories in the middle column are preconceptual, and the circle is 
a conceptual - and circular - set of classic levels, that emerge from 
each other.

Warning - the following is very technical.

I abandoned the cyclical approach at the time I began writing the letter 
to Pirsig, that apparently was not quite finished, and was not sent to 
Pirsig. I am now using it again. The problem was that at that time, I 
was using a formulation of SOQ (3,4)C, and that instance of SOQ is not 
circular. According to results I have obtained by examining instances of 
SOQ (n,k)C in such a way that n is either 1, 2, 3 or 4, an instance of 
SOQ (n,k)C can only be expressed as circular, if n is an even number. I 
am now using the instance of SOQ (4,4)C as default. Pirsig uses a SOQ of 
(2,1)C in ZAMM, and in LILA he uses a SOQ of (2,4)C(2,1.4). If you would 
like to know, what these denotations mean, you can ask me or see this: 
http://www.moq.fi/sets-of-quality/formal-soq/

Best regards,
Tuukka