Re: MD The SOL fallacy was the intelligence fallacy (was Rhetoric)

From: David M (davidint@blueyonder.co.uk)
Date: Sat Oct 01 2005 - 18:45:29 BST

  • Next message: David M: "Re: MD The SOL fallacy was the intelligence fallacy (was Rhetoric)"

    thing is the language of mathematics
    only becomes useful when you go
    about sharing it with others or
    applying it as a way of cutting up
    and acting on experience. Logic
    has the same status in mathematics
    as plausibility does in a novel.

    DM

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Case" <Case@iSpots.com>
    To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    Sent: Friday, September 30, 2005 2:15 PM
    Subject: Re: MD The SOL fallacy was the intelligence fallacy (was Rhetoric)

    > [Bo said:]
    >> Again the intellectual level as "thinking". Is there anything less
    >> static and more dynamic than that? Even Pirsig has rejected
    >> thinking as definition for the STATIC intellectual level. (write
    >> "static" hundred times on your blackboard!)
    >>
    >> Scott:
    >> Where did he say this? I am curious because I have been saying for a long
    >> time that thinking should be considered as DQ, and as far as I can
    >> recall,
    >> no one has agreed with me. But I do not distinguish significantly between
    >> thinking and intellect, so here again we disagree on how to use these
    >> terms.
    >
    > [Case]
    > I always thought Pirsig's use of the levels was more rhetorical than
    > absolute. The levels he describes are not as he describes them: discrete.
    > This whole four levels things seems to be more of an obstical to
    > recognizing the interplay of dynamic and static values than a knife for
    > cutting through the Gordian knot they weave.
    >
    >> Bo said:
    >> And then this
    >> pompous term "mathematics" as if we are to prostrate ourselves
    >> in front of it. It's just another form of calculation? And does not
    >> 2+2 require thinking? You too seem to have fallen into the
    >> intelligence pit, or maybe never been out of it.
    >>
    >> Most friendly but I can't resist a bit sarcasm.
    >>
    >> Scott:
    >> What is pompous about it? Meanwhile, how about addressing the issue that
    >> mathematics raises, namely intellectual activity that is not divided into
    >> S
    >> and O. (And, yes, I am definitely in the intelligence pit, as you put
    >> it.)
    >
    > [Case]
    > I thought this observation was among the most astute I have seen here.
    > What you originally said was, 'in mathematics there is no S/O divide
    > (since the thinking is the mathematics -- there is no object separate from
    > the thinking that the thinking is about)."
    > Isn't that because the language of mathematics is aimed at eliminating the
    > metaphorical quality of everyday language? Or is it because it is composed
    > of metaphors of extraordinary precision? I for one would like to see you
    > elaborate on this. I can't help but add that when I do math there are
    > objects separate from the thinking because I have to show my work and
    > carry my ones but that's just me.
    >
    > Case
    >
    >
    > MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    > Mail Archives:
    > Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    > Nov '02 Onward -
    > http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    > MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
    >
    > To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    > http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
    >
    >

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    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 2.1.5 : Sat Oct 01 2005 - 20:30:06 BST