On Jan 2, 2010, at 9:20 AM, [email protected] wrote: > All > > 2 Jan.: > > I received this from Andre > : >> Quality subordinate to 1+1=2? Where do you get that from Bodvar? >> Quality is not subordinate to anything. Rather Quality has 1+1=2. >> Quality is direct experience, the non-intellectual cutting edge. Please >> do not reduce Quality to some logical sequence of events. > > Please give me hell on this point, I'm happy to be corrected. Will > have to think some more on this issue. > > Marsha wrote the same day: > >> I have been haunted by something I read a while ago: All knowledge is >> to some degree false because it is to some degree incomplete. >> Wouldn't this make knowledge both true and false? > > Knowledge in intellect-as-SOM's ultimate "true,objective" sense is not > tenable, but we must not throw the baby out with the water, i.e. > declare intellect-as-a-Q-level's immense S/O value to be worthless. > This is the effect I fear from the "MOQ-an-intellectual-pattern" faction, > namely that the MOQ is a "better intellectual idea" which is it isn't, it's > no intellectual pattern but something that has departed from intellect- > as.SOM and transformed into its own 4th static level I hope you still > subscribe to the SOL.
Hi Bo, No intentions of throwing out the baby. I am interested in science's proclamations, but I take them to be provisionally true. I'm not sure I understand every nuance of your SOL, but I still agree with you that the Intellectual Level is best understood as the SOM, that the Intellectual Level emerged with likes of Plato and Aristotle, and that there should be an emerging Quality Level represented above the Intellectual Level. > >> And this morning I read that Feyerbend called the laws of formal logic >> naive. Margolis says much about adding Indeterminate to the bipolar >> truth-values: True or False, but I'm finding his book very difficult >> because he mentions dozens of philosophers (briefly stating their >> argument) I have never heard of, and who seem to have some professional >> stake in this game. But I wonder that DQ is present in every event and >> it is indeterminate. Hmmm. > > But this is something else. Logic through which "gates" experience > must pass to be perceived (the simplest of which is 1+1=2) cannot be > violated or declared "naive". Understand? Intellect's science may > make a lot of "findings" that later shows to be wrong, but 1+1=2 will > never be found wrong This is what has begun to worry me of late. > Where does logic itself belong in the MOQ? Intellectual patterns of value are analogues, and while they are useful, I do not consider them absolute. Marsha _______________________________________________________________________ Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars... 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/
