Bo, Andre, Still cannot agree with this Bo.
It is almost certainly the case that logic and numbers underly the physical (and bio, social etc) in ways that are more fundamental that SOMism or Intellectual PoV's. But equally clearly it is NOT fundamental to choose the Babylonians or Pythagoreans as fundamentally definining when logic became a PoV. As soon as anyone (any sentient being) started to symbolize such "rules" mentally ... they were intellectualizing ... creating Intellectual PoV's (how good these patterns are / were depends on empirical tests of time.) And these were SOMist patterns too, as I explained once before. Two apples, one pear and one gooseberry do not make four, UNTIL you symbolize (objectify) the discrete objects in the conceptualized statement. Then the logical symbology makes sense. Until then 2 + 2 = 4 IS (literally) meaningless. It IS a SOMist intellectual pattern. If you are NOT dealing with objects other "logics" may apply. Regards Ian On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 8:36 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Andre > > 29 Dec. u wrote: >> Formal logic in the "if A=B, then B=A " sense is truly a SOM product, >> but this applied before the intellectual level, and ancient (social >> level) people knew that through calculation, and that this works for >> animals too is plain as displayed by their striking intelligence. > > Andre: >> Bodvar, bear with me...so 'formal' logic is not an intellectual PoV? >> Please explain. > > What I meant was that logic as an academical discipline is SOM > (intellect) in the same sense that mathematical theorems are, but the > mere phenomenon that 2+2=4 is something any intelligent being > knows intuitively. Regarding Pythagoras' (the sum of the squares of > the legs ....etc.) this was known to the Babylonians (social level) but > only with Pythagoras did this become an academical (intellectual) > theorem. > > Remember Pirsig's alleged disproof of the SOL (intellect=S/O) on the > grounds that "... logic itself and mathematics have no S/O content > ..etc". How could he say that these things are "intellectual patterns", > they have been always and are the base of reality itself? But then, > where exactly does logic ITSELF belong in the MOQ? This has given > me "gas" (and constipation) Perhaps it is another aspect of Quality, > like Beauty? " > > Transcribing Plato: > That two plus two is four, Phaedrus, need we ask anyone to tell us > these things" > 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/
