----- Original Message ----
From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Thu, December 31, 2009 3:55:07 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] Where does ligic itself belong inside the MOQ?
Hi Ron
30 Dec. u wrote:
> 2+2 may equal 5 if the value of 2 is high enough. 2.26 (rounded to 2) +
> 2.26(rounded to 2) equals 4.52 (which rounds to 5) All measurement is
> this way, all math is based in measurement. Measurement means limiting,
> limiting, rounding to a whole.
Bo:
I may not be a math wizard, but at least I know that differential
calculation i NOT "rounding to a whole". Beside this kind (2+2=5)
idiocy is what would give the MOQ a bad name.
Ron:
That kind of idiocy is what is known as precision. Even in differential
calculation.
To someone with an 5th grade level understanding of mathematics, it would seem
like idiocy.
> therefore 2+2=4 is based on abstract symbols that have no
> corresponding experience.
Bo:
"Symbols/what is symbolized" along with "abstract/concrete" are SOM
offshoots. The "concrete" that the "abstract" refers to may be an
"abstract" in itself, in the same sense that a symbol may symbolize
another symbol, but that does not shake the SOM foundations.
Therefore is Pirsig's new definition of intellect (manipulation of symbols
that have no corresponding experience) futile. Intellect is the
"symbol/what is symbolized" distinction!!!!
Ron:
You say:
"Symbols/what is symbolized" along with "abstract/concrete" are SOM
offshoots.
then say:
Intellect is the "symbol/what is symbolized" distinction!!!!
which leads to the statement that intellect is an SOM offshoot.
This is very interesting Bodvar, how is intellect an SOM offshoot
when you contend that SOM = the intellectual level?
> It is an abstraction based on the concept of a whole entity.
?????????????????
Ron:
You ought to read Aristotles metaphysics.
> whether animals are capable of this sort of conceptualization is
> debatable since this is what Pirsig describes as defining the human
> intellectual level "the manipulation of abstract symbols with have no
> corresponding experience"
Thinking - INTELLIGENCE - has nothing to do with INTELLECT. This
is the hang-up that some of you seem unable to snap out of. Animals
do not "say" to themselves (my crow for instance) "let's see, how can I
get to this food", but it surely manipulated former experience of how
things work and arrived at a solution. I have given it some extra food
on extra long strings to see it at work OK, I know you just write this to
tease me, so a Happy New Year to you in Philadelphia (was it?)
Ron:
You seem to be equating memory with intelligence.
Happy new year to you also.
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/
