Thanks Ian! Good suggestion! Joe
On 7/12/09 11:51 PM, "Ian Glendinning" <[email protected]> wrote: > 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/ 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/
