Hi Andre
The new year is already upon you at those longitudes?
31 Dec. you wrote :
Bodvar's response to Ian:
> Well, the (social level) people surely knew that if they counted apples
> they made an an apple symbol. But THAT is not to objectify the
> phenomenon that 2+2 equals 4. I don't think there is a theorem made
> on that?
Andre:
> I don't think that Ian means this Bodvar. The 'development' seems to
> be the change from 'tangeable' items (such as apples and pears) to the
> abstract symbolisation of it as a 'unit' with 'meaning'.
If your "development" means the social-intellectual one, you are
mistaken. The social era surely knew that the word "apple" isn't the
actual fruit (in their respective language) so THAT isn't the intellectual
development. But at the social level the "symbol/what is symbolized"
distinction had not become reality's absolute fundament. They had
harvest rituals where (f.ex) apples being offered to the "apple god" to
secure next years crop. Intellect scoffs at this, no symbolic offering can
change the workings of the objective reality which is totally indifferent
to wishes, prayers, bribes ... whatever. This objective ATTITUDE is
intellect's hallmark.
> I am hopeless at mathematics, let alone logic but what sprang to mind
> reading Ian's post was the change, as a possible related
> 'intellectualisation' from (for example) the barter- to the
> rudimentary 'monetary' system, which clearly is an abstract
> representation of value (as an adjective) as opposed to the 'real'
> item. This appears to me quite a jump.
No, no, money is far older than the intellectual level (the Greek
philosophers) at least in Europe. Gold can be seen as barter, but is
really "money", it was good for nothing in the ancient world yet valued
for its beauty and permanence.
> Correct me if I am misinterpreting Ian.
> Also, logic appears to be a method of establishing 'formal', 'true'
> relationships. Following the 'logical' path leads to 'truth'
> statements.
Yes, that's something different and more close to the "theorems" I'm
harping on. Ancient people knew the Pythagoras "effect" long before
Pythagoras, but he set out to prove that the sum of the squares ... etc.
is valid always. That's the said intellectual attitude. But don't be fooled
that "logic itself" only serves intellect, it was - still is - equally logical
to
a devout Muslim that Allah has given Mohammed the rules to live by.
It's the premises that count.
> I thought that the Poincarre (in ZMM) examples (and the platypi in
> LILA) argued that foundations of this 'logical' method are, firstly not
> necessarily true and, secondly, that results of the application of this
> method, by implication, are also not necessarily true i.e. they are
> conventions and have led to many paradoxes/contradictions.
At least regarding Poincarè in ZAMM the ideas was that one does not
arrive at insights by (which intellect calls) "thinking logically", but by
(what intellect calls) subconscious .....
> Again, not being a mathematician but having seen parts of equations
> alledgedly representing relationships at the inorganic level I get the
> notion that a more contortionist representation is almost imposssible
> let alone comprehensible.
Well, mathematics - algebra - equations - are just formal logical strings
that must be "fed" some premises at the beginning. And my musings
on Jesus as a intellectual pioneer in the thick the social value-steeped
Jewish culture was my informal logic AKA "intelligence" fed with
MOQ's premises. Out came the said conclusion and I was as baffled
as phycisists when new particles (necessitated by their equations)
pops up.
> As you mentioned before Bodvar: a MoQ without logic is nonsense but I
> would suggest that the assumptions upon which (S/O) logic is based
> need to be seriously questioned/amended/enlarged...and I think that
> Mr.Pirsig did just this in LILA.
Agree, what I said in the previous "popeye post".
> Ps: Bodvar: I am still teaching but not students...I am teaching
> teachers. This makes me a Teaching Advisor or a Trainer of Trainers
> trying to up-end the dominant teaching methodology and, by
> implication, the Chinese education system. Fun and frustrating because
> their cultural immune system is about 2 meters thick...if not more.
Interesting. I looked up the locations you mentioned and easily found
Xi'an, but Shangzuo was harder. What looked like big cities in the
Shaanxi province (and within 2 hour by bus from Xi'an) were Houma,
Linfen or perhaps Changzhi. Anyplace near those? This is much
farther north than your previous stay?
Cultural immune systems, yes, but what culture, where to place the
Chinese in the level system? Communism was a rational (intellectual)
system worked out by Marx that, planted into the Q-social reality of
Russia, wrecked havoc. It wrecked havoc in Cambodia and in China
too (the Cultural Revolution) but where are the Chinese Q-basically?
We tend to think them Confucians and/or Taoist and as such beyond
intellect ...Any observations?
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/
