Erin,
Here's the reply to you inquiry about paraconsistent
logic. My basic point is that logic is a "structure"
that determines sometimes "how" we are going to think.
So, Bo's desire to "add" a 5th level MAY be a result
of "logic" and not necessarily the "best" solution. He
has a problem, MOQ in Q-intellect seems a bad thing,
and so if you think logically you think serially and
you propose a 5th level. This is all basic
"modernism" or a "structuralism." The structure,
"logic," is determining the solution, not the
individual. That's Angus' critique of Bo's solution.
My view of paraconsistent logic is this: when I meet
say an attractive woman, I start a process
reflexively. Some of the "logical" thoughts: 1) "wow
she's hot, she must have a boyfriend." (a logical
(poor?) thought but could be wrong) 2) "wow no one
asks her to dance she must be so hot that no one
dances with her, i'll ask her to dance"
Anyway you get the idea. These are logical processes
BUT they're not very helpful and in a lot of ways they
get in the way. So what I do now, is I try to launch a
second process, my paraconsistent logic process (if I
were a Zen, I guess I would never launch that
persnickety logic process but I'm not on that path, I
gotta get stuff done today). I listen to the
conclusions of my "logical" process BUT then I act in
violation to it's conclusions. So in theory 1 my
logical conclusion is "she is not available" BUT I
will still act in "contradiction" to that thought. I
will act "as if" she is not with a boyfriend. Thus, I
am "acting" in logical contradiction, acting on 2
"trues". That is real life, that is experience. And
that is what I think Pirsig tries to say.
I sound stilted with the word "paraconsistent" logic
but it's just a label. It's based on a synthesis of
early and late Wittgenstein. It's a bit Derrida, it's
a bit Pirsig. BUT to me it's how life works and
interacts.
>For some
> reason it seems like it would have to be done in
> baby steps with each level
> growing in size and complexity.
This statement betrays your "structuralism." Being
"logocentric" we love growth, a center out of which
something progresses. But instead of going from 4 to
5, it could go to -1. Why not? I'm not against going
to 5, I'm just asking "are we going to 5 for our love
of serial progression? (is that your "reason")" I
think so BECAUSE a better solution is to think
paraconsistently. Think of Q-intellect as [dq]
Q-intellect [\dq] and we don't need no level 5. What
happens is we get a problem and we think logically.
But logic is recursively protective. We want things to
"grow" but not too fast. That's how we viewed
evolution for a long time. Why? Because we have
logical biases that fog our thinking. The only way out
for me is paraconsistent logic, the ability to hold
contradictory ideas at the same time and let the
universe select it.
Angus
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games
http://sports.yahoo.com
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 - 16:01:52 BST