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

From: Scott Roberts (jse885@localnet.com)
Date: Sat Oct 08 2005 - 05:50:00 BST

  • Next message: skutvik@online.no: "Re: MD The SOL fallacy was the intelligence fallacy (was Rhetoric)"

    Bo,

    Scott said:
    > 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.

    Bo said:
    Thinking as DQ? No bad idea, that means a Metaphysics of
    Thought. Dynamic/Static thought ...etc, but also in a MOT the
    intellectual level will have to be the subject/object distinction.

    Scott:
    As I've argued many times, I think the basic premise of the MOQ (that value
    is ubiquitous) leads necessarily to a MOT, but here I want to state my case
    again about mathematics being an exception to intellect as the S/O
    distinction. You have dismissed this by characterizing mathematics as
    calculation, but that is like characterizing physics as building bridges.
    Here is what I mean when I say there is no S/O distinction in mathematical
    activity:

    "Mathematical lines, points, and surfaces are "acts of the imagination that
    are one with the product of those acts." And this remains true of the
    figures constructed with them. A geometrician draws three meeting lines on a
    slate; but the 'triangle' which he then sees merely represents to him (and
    imperfectly) an ideal figure he has first had to produce by an act of
    thought or (it is practically the same thing) an act of imagination....Both
    the act and the product of the act..are already there before the pencil has
    touched the slate.They are inseparable from one another or normally so, but
    that does not entail that they are indistinguishable. Indeed it is precisely
    as we do begin to distinguish them that we come at "the mind's
    self-experience in the act of thinking.""
    [Barfield, "What Coleridge Thought" quotes are from Coleridge]

    Just to be clear, what Barfield is doing here is meta-mathematics, that is,
    is about mathematics, and is S/O (the object being mathematical thinking),
    but mathematical thinking itself is not S/O. But to claim it is not
    intellect is absurd.

    - Scott

    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 08 2005 - 07:16:56 BST