To the two 'J's --
On 6/29/09 2:14 PM, AM, Joseph Maurer wrote to John Carl:
As far as logic goes, mathematics 1+1=2 is the most rigorous logic.
Even a creator cannot program a computer to divide 1 by 0.
There is a fault line in such a perception, leading to an error message.
Mathematical logic is not metaphysical logic. Which one is more
comprehensive?
Here's my solution to your "fault line" error. (I suppose John will call
this "picking and defining my game.") But here goes ...
Mathematical values are valid only within the scope of finite dimensions.
Therefore, in existential logic, one divided by nothing remains a unity
because no division is consummated. However, in metaphysical logic, unity
represents an absolute source and zero represents "nothingness", a negation
of that unity. This negation represents existence -- a relational world of
infinitely differentiated phenomena.
Aristotle tried to cross that fault line by describing a divided
existence.
In his psychology he proposed an intentional existence for S, a real
existence for O, thereby creating SOM metaphysics. Pirsig, in a
Metaphysics Of Quality, accepts DQ as perceivable, but indefinable.
Where is the logic in that?
Existence IS divided. This is true whether the relational world is "real"
or only experiential (i.e., perceivable). Therefore any logic applied to
metaphysics must accommodate that truth. Is it then a logical error to
conclude that 1 divided by 0 = Infinity? If so, I take full credit for the
error.
Would you kindly explain what you mean by "an intentional existence"? Who
or what is the "intendor"?
I accept Pirsig¹s description of evolution, and conclude that evolution
can be perceived as a moral hierarchy in existence. He proposes four
levels, but I prefer to use the musical scale for 7 levels of evolution.
I think Aristotle had the right idea of dividing existence, but he got it
wrong.
Evolution, MOQ, is a fuller concept than SOM. I do not perceive logic
in a hierarchy of existence. The perception of DQ is of the moment, the
thousand-tongued Hydra.
Evolution can be perceived as a hierarchy of any number of levels. But why
do we need a level hierarchy? I can't see any relation of the seven-tone
musical scale to Pirsig's hierarchy of Quality levels. This reminds me of
the infamous "string theory" of the universe which went from 5 dimensions to
11, and then 12, before it was replaced by the theory of parallel universes.
Have you ever defined what these levels represent?
Also, in what way did Aristotle or Descartes get it wrong by positing
existence as a subject/object dualism?
Thanks, gentlemen,
Ham
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
On 6/29/09 7:55 AM, "John Carl" <[email protected]> wrote:
Huh? There's all kinds of logic in evolution: can't have two fathers
simultaneously, genetic rules, etc. I guess its how you look at "logic".
Considered as "the rules of the game" then its just a matter of picking
and
defining your game.
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/
