Hey Joe, (Bo, DMB et al) Not sure I follow all of your reasoning there, but your final statement ... "The limited rigid logic of mathematics does not approach the [precision] of evolution in explaining reality"
I very much agree. This is the same fundamental problem we keep coming back to in Bo's criticisms of the lack of logic in those of us who find ourselves comfortable with the evolutionary logic in the MoQ. (Same issue as DMB's in disentangling the "immediate" timescales in radical empiricism from the "historical" timescales in the evolved levels.) The consistency is there, but will not be found in over-simplistic immediate logic that ignores the historical level shifts. (One suggestion - I'd swap out the word "precision" from your quote and use "quality".) Regards Ian On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 9:01 PM, Joseph Maurer<[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 7/6/09 5:00 AM, "X Acto" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Ron, Bo, Kat, and all, (revision of previous response) > > Imho (in my humble opinion), MOQ (Metaphysics Of Quality) reasonably changed > the basis of the logic of SOM (Subject Object Metaphysics). SOM logic > defines an undefined subject by the action of a defining verb. In the case > of dividing by 0 this is illogical. Descartes states: ³I think therefore I > am!² The subject has only intentional existence. Aristotle defines motion > in a similar way: ³The act of a being in potency in as much as it is in > potency.² In SOM the subject is undefined (with only intentional existence > from the object) and becomes defined by the action of the verb and object. > E.g., the man is eating. The ³man² is defined in the eating, and we can > distinguish the ³man² from a statue. > > > > In MOQ (Metaphysics of Quality) the subject is defined in an evolutionary > hierarchy. The object, the level of evolution, is defined in the action, > SOL. E.g., The man is eating eggs. The ³man² is in an order of evolution > requiring nourishment for survival and is not a statue. The subject is > defined in the action. ³The rock falls to the ground.² ³Hot air rises in > the atmosphere.² The object is defined in an undefined order of evolution. > Dividing by 0 is stasis. Nothing changes. A statement of division by 0 is > illogical outside an evolutionary environment. Hence the error message on a > calculator. The limited rigid logic of mathematics does not approach the > precision of evolution in explaining reality. > > > > Joe > >> Bo: >> I know you haven't read a word of this Steve, that's the policy around >> this place. Don't look into the telescope. >> >> Ron: >> No, it's don't look into YOUR telescope, Pirsig clearly states that MoQ and >> SOM >> are two ways to view one set of data, that of dynamic quality. You want to >> interpet >> MoQ objectively and apply this to it's heirarchy of levels. for example: >> >> Bo: >> You seem oblivious to the fact that the first DQ/SQ distinction is >> the inorganic one and its perception of value is not by concepts nor >> is the biological, only with the social level and language did >> concepts enter the scene. >> >> Ron: >> Well if that doesent sound like an objective opinion of when subjective >> interpretation comes into existence, I don't know what is. Bo, the only way >> we view ANYTHING is via social level and intellectual level, this goes for >> the view of the inorganic and biological levels, the view of these levels is >> ALLWAYS from the social and intellectual levels viewpoint. Since all >> inorganic >> and biological patterns are viewed from the perspective of the social and >> intellectual levels, they are understood as concepts. Inorganic and >> biological >> patterns are dynamic quality and all our explainations and interpretations >> of it (this includes SOM & MoQ) is from the perspective of social and >> intellectual >> level (static) patterns. >> >> There is no Gods eye view Bo. If you think MoQ relieves us of our social >> and intellectual level viewpoint and gives us a gods eye view, you are >> missing >> the point of a MoQ, thats the first bugaboo that MoQ destroys. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >> To: [email protected] >> Sent: Sunday, July 5, 2009 12:35:55 PM >> Subject: Re: [MD] Reductionism >> >> Hi Steve >> >> 5 July you wrote: >> >>> Hi Bo, DMB, >> >>>>> One doesn't need to "deduce" the discrepancy between concepts and >>>>> reality from the DQ/sq distinction because that distinction and the >>>>> discrepancy are exactly the same thing. Concepts are static >>>>> intellectual patterns and reality is Dynamic Quality. >> >>> Bo said: >>>> You seem oblivious to the fact that the first DQ/SQ distinction is >>>> the inorganic one and its perception of value is not by concepts nor >>>> is the biological, only with the social level and language did >>>> concepts enter the scene, but only with intellect did the the >>>> reality/concept distinction occur. Your resistance shows how >>>> immensely strong intellect's ties are - they want to dominate the >>>> scene - but these must be torn if one is to enter Quality's >>>> meta-level. >> >>> Steve: >> >>> I think Pirsig disagrees and favors DMB's interpretation of the MOQ: >> >> Don't you think I know that Pirsig agrees with DMB, and that makes it >> so terrible hard for me to defend the true MOQ, but in LC Pirsig tarted >> to stray from the original ZAMM MOQ. To be more exact the decline >> started in LILA with the ill-conceived intellectual level (as mind) then >> the Turner letter where he admitted the confusion that this created >> and came within a hair's breath to admit the true (SOL) interpretation, >> but even so DMB continues to treat the intellectual level as SOM's >> mind and that its patterns are ideas or concepts. Well you ignore all >> my arguments and bring a LC quote: >> >> LC annotation 60. "This is difficult to untangle...The difference >> is rooted in the historic chicken-and-egg controversy over >> whether matter came first and produces ideas, or ideas come >> first and produce what we know as matter. The MOQ says that >> Quality comes first which produces ideas which produce what >> we know as matter. The scientific community that has >> produced Complementarity, almost invariably presumes that >> matter comes first and produces ideas. However, as if to >> further the confusion, the MOQ says that the idea that matter >> comes first is a high quality idea! ..." >> >> What the heck has the mind/matter controversy to do with the MOQ? >> Its DQ/SQ distinction has replaced SOM's Mind/Matter and (as the >> only possible opening) has made SOM its own intellectual level. >> >> The true MOQ says that Quality is primary ("comes first") and its first >> "product" being the inorganic level and then the biological ...etc. and >> finally the intellectual level where the S/O split (and its many offshots, >> mind/matter among them) are its static value patterns. Then Pirsig >> manages to say that "ideas" produces matter, if so ideas also produce >> ideas (mind) and all this goes haywire. And then the reference to the >> "scientific community" (physics) that "..... invariably presumes that >> matter comes first and produces ideas" (mind) Sure, it's science's >> (intellect's) very business to presume that the OBJECTIVE part is >> primary and the SUBJECTIVE is secondary. Then he says " ..to >> further the confusion the MOQ says that the idea that matter comes >> first is a high quality idea". Yes, the intellectual level is the highest >> static value, but its patterns are not IDEAS but the S/O split. >> Why this terribly convoluted way to arrive at something that the true >> MOQ clarifies so infinitely easier? >> >> Well I only know too well, it's his misconceived mindish intellectual >> level that has concepts or ideas as its patterns. >> >>> DMB, I've enjoyed reading your stuff of late. All that book learnin' >>> is doing you good. >> >> Once upon a time while DMB had his nerve he protested just this very >> LC annotation, but got seduced by Paul Turner and have since gone >> more and more astray. His study of academical philosophy has >> further added to his decay. >> >> >> >> Bodvar >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 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/ >> >> >> >> >> 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/ > > > 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/ > 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/
