On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 2:29 PM, Ham Priday <[email protected]> wrote:
> > To the two 'J's -- > > > Here's my solution to your "fault line" error. (I suppose John will call > this "picking and defining my game.") But here goes ... > Yes, but play that is known as play is perfectly valid, and besides Ham, you didn't pick this game, Joe did. However, picking math as the game comes with some problems - chief being perfectly illustrated by something Ron said in a different thread: "The desire for certainty in meaning blinds one to the value of meaning in the concept of certainty" You like that Joe? The "value of meaning"? I like it a lot. I like words. I think we do our best communication when using words; fraught with ambiguity as they may be. It is risky, using words. You will be misunderstood and suffer translation problems using words - like the time I told Ham I didn't think Occam's Razor was the truest guide to Quality and he explained who Occam was rather than address my issue which was that simplicity is quite often simply simplistic - you will have to spend time and effort when using words and you lose control of your word's meaning the instant it leaves your brain and enters the brain of your intended. It can be frustrating, maddening, seemingly hopeless at times. But oh so worth the effort when it works. 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. Cool. This negation represents existence - I totally get that. Divide by a metaphysical zero and you reach infinity. One totally great thing about playing differing logical games is you get to see hard concepts from differing perspectives. I'll grant you that is a big help. Sometimes. Personally, my first instinct is NOT to think mathematically, but hey, that's just me. I liked a quote I read somewhere that the American Indian didn't think about animals, the American Indian thought IN animals. The animals were the conceptual framework for their perceived reality. I'd rather think in animal than math, but having both at hand for comparison purposes is best of all. > > 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? Ooh! I feel another Needleman quote coming on. "There is a kind of wonder which accompanies the perception of a difference of levels in the universe and in ourselves. But it seems we then all too easily dream of striding beyond this difference of levels, rather than seeking to allow the higher level to enter our minds as a kind of guide to our unknown selves. That is why it seems to me that men need the discipline of a path, and the ideas which it brings in ways that interfere with the egoistic cerebral automatism." > > Also, in what way did Aristotle or Descartes get it wrong by positing > existence as a subject/object dualism? > Starting with his cogito ergo sum, Descartes first identified self with associations of thought. He then separated this "self" off from surrounding nature, including the body. And the body he then understood to be devoid of consciousness, purpose and the inherent power of life. The implications of this separation are realized when we face nature as explainers and conquerors, thus causing a biological disruption which threatens man's future existence. imVHo, john > > 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/ > -- ------------ Doing Good IS Being ------------ 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/
