Squonk and fellow metaphyscists
(I had prepared this when I saw your last post. I want to think about
that one a bit more so it's not included. Nor are Rob and Angus
who I will answer soon.)
You said:
> As something of an admirer of yours, please do not feel i am going
> to be in any way offhand with your ideas? Your ideas deserve respect
> IMHO.
Good to hear in this assembly of so many Chiefs and so few
Indians :-). In return I am an admirer of your charming mix of
aggressiveness and yielding. Quite a balance act.
Me from before:
> > It springs from my so-called SOLAQI idea (subject/object logic as
> > quality's intellect). With the condition that SOM is Intellect
> > added to Pirsig's thesis that the MoQ is to replace SOM ... the
> > Quality idea is an intellectual pattern that can't "stand living at
> > home" any longer.
> May i say a few things about your SOLAQI if i may?
> This is an intriguing idea, but i am not convinced?
> The origin of the term, Logic is from the Greek Logos or 'to give an
> account.' The account is to be of a things 'essence' or 'what it is to
> be' a thing. The thing in question could be almost any thing separated
> in some respect from its surroundings. i.e. categorised. Now that is
> SOM would you agree? So far so good.
I thought logic emanated from the logos term ("word/language"),
but "giving account" is what all is about.
When the Intellect=SOM idea first emerged I called it SOTAQI
(T=thinking) but after a debate with one Donny Palmgren it became
"logic". The gist of it is the Intellect being no realm of thinking,
which was the weak spot ...as I saw the MoQ.
> 2. The more recent use of the term Logic has developed from
> mathematics.
> Once it was understood that symbols could replace numbers and
> geometry's, we had what one may call a meta-geomathmatico language of
> sorts?
Isn't that still understood?
> But a language non the less? I feel it is fair enough to say
> that any language is an Intellectual pattern of value, and one that
> has its roots in the social level? OK.
Roots in the social level - definitely. The "first ordinary" language
(whatever that means) did not convey any intellectual content (the
Cro-Magnons did not discuss if their world view was objective true
or subjective nonsense), but somehow language itself were the
"trojan horse" of intellect.
Concepts manipulated by logic may yield results no one didn't
know existed. Have you noticed how new ideas may arrive while
writing - or speaking for those of the verbal kind. P. of ZAMM says
somewhere ..."My God, it came to me just now".
> 3. The rational basis for language is not necessarily logical.
> Irrational numbers, for example, were thought to be rather special, as
> 'no account' or 'logos' could be given for them. These numbers occur
> naturally, and take the form of ratios.
My math isn't very much, but "irrational numbers" - isn't "zero" an
irrational quantity too? - were probably such an unexpected
windfall result of logic: a tool created by a tool.
> Now i should like to contend, as a precursor to an essay i hope to
> submit to the forum very soon, that ratios are not good in themselves,
> but are, as Pirsig may support, the product of Quality. Quality
> creates ratios.
Ratio sounds related to 'rational' or 'reason'? As I argue above the
inherent logic of language must once have created the impression
of a realm of REASON beyond emotions (the social "expression"
IMO) In other words the embryonic intellectual level!
BTW. The abstract quality of it all also created an impression a
MIND different from the matter world.
> The SOM logic or account of reality is fraught with that which is
> irrational also. Even binary systems are prone to Mu states which
> cannot be accounted for by the binary language itself?
T R U E ! The very thesis of P. is that deep down intellect's social
roots show. And that goes for the whole Q-sequence, whatever
level one starts to dig at the "root" shows. Reason is "irrational",
Society is "selfish", Biology is "dead" and Matter is "immaterial"
(Quantum Physics). Yet in the MoQ this does not shake one's
foundations, the various levels are great values nevertheless.
> To conclude:
> SOM is a high quality reality with its own language(s)
> MOQ tells us this is so, but once stated is itself a higher quality
> reality with its own language(s) The new languages of MOQ are value
> based and 'join' that which SOM put 'asunder.'
This is in perfect harmony with my reasoning if only you put SOM
in Intellect's position. Otherwise a meta-space is invoked (the said
QUALITY outside Dynamic Quality) .... but maybe this is what
you treat in the last "amendment". Let me return to that.
> SOM has produced languages that have found uses.
> But they are one facet only of intellect.
It's SOM as a mere facet of Intellect - and MoQ another - that
bothers me, but let me return to that ....it sounded as if you
touched upon this.
> The MOQ isn't leaving home, It's buying the house.
A perfect metaphor.
> In this way we can value SOm languages for their utility; but in so
> far as the house is under new management, we are moving back to the
> time before SOM squatted?
YES! But wouldn't it be better to "give unto Caesar ..." and let SOM
squat over an entire value level? Otherwise it must be dropped in
some metaphysical waste-basket in the said meta-realm. Also the
"moving back" notion can be avoided, do we ever really move back?
But the house is under new management .....you are a master of
great metaphors :-)
See you soon
Bo
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:38 BST