Nice one Bo, progress. (and Steve & Andre) Certainly not water off a duck's back to me. In fact you give me an opportunity to explain myself at last, and it's way beyond any kind of "orthodoxy". Way beyond "trust me, it's that ephemeral quality".
We get to the real root of the problem Bo. We use the term SOMist about the focus on subjects and objects (yawn), but in fact a problem is indeed in our adherence to "logic" when we use these objects. (NB "logic when we use ...", not logic per se.) So. You are right I do do "violence" to certain kinds of "SOMist logic" as I have freely admitted. The argument is not simply logic vs faith as you would have it, but belief in different kinds of logic. You are just as wedded to your view of logic as you think I am to some other mysterious kind of logic. Because the latter is mysterious to you and the former isn't, you call the one logic and the other faith. But, listen ... I really am an engineer / scientist / manager - I'm no mysterian ... In my kind of (dependent-arising / circular / recursive / strange-loopy) logic, which is "mysterious" to you (ie not logic), the basic tenets of your kind of syllogistic logic are not violated, it's just that they have to be applied to the right levels of things (I hesitate to say "objects"). So there is a reductionism required, a "non-greedy" kind of reductionism, to explain all the processes (quite logically) in the physical levels but that explanations at one level are not simply "causes" in another. They are part of interactive two-way-causal processes, not one-way causations - closer to quality in fact, or inclusionality. The things we see as (as if) causes and effects in the macro (non-reductionist) world are not governed by simple logic in that world. The loops of interactivity cross levels, and we get "emergence" or "dependent arisings". When I talk about being "pragmatic" I am certainly not taking us back to some time before the objects of science were available for logical analysis. I'm just saying that in the macro, everyday world, the one in which we need to make day to day decisions, we should not be surprised to find breakdowns in simple logical relationships between objects at this macro level. Probability based on experience needs to plug such holes in strict logic (at this level). Avoid analysis paralysis, and live. It's a "radical" kind of pragmatism, but a post-MoQ enlightened kind, not an ignorant kind. In fact, it's wisdom for want of a better word. The sophists, rhetoricians and poets (and sages) actually get closer to communicating this than I have, but enlightened science really is converging on the same picture, without giving up it's logical tenets, just its unfounded certainty in tangible objects in any given level, to which it erroneously applies that logic all too easily. Ian On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 2:57 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Ian > > 29 Nov.you wrote: > >> That's how I look at it Steve. > >> (1) seeing the MOQ as an intellectual pattern that is superior to the >> intellectual pattern known as SOM (2) as opposed to seeing all of >> intellect as SOM (IOW Pirsig's MOQ) (3) and the MOQ as a single >> pattern forming it's own new level (IOW Bo and Platt's revised SOLAQI >> MOQ)? > >> Though I have to say I see (1) a the Pirsigian MoQ since as I have >> said endlessly in this recent series of threads he never says anything >> close to (2) "all of intellect being SOM" IMHO. He was just ahead of >> his time in evolutionary explanations for (1). > >> (2) plus (3) are the Bo problem. > > Bo problem, my foot. The SOL is a solution of a problem that > orthodoxy has imposed on the MOQ and if it is the to make it out of > this faithful circle it can't be hampered with such a blatant violence of > logic. It's useless to comment this - water on a goose - so I wait for > Steve's, he is orthodox but seems susceptible to logic. > > Bo > Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
