[MD] Where does logic itself belong inside the MOQ?

[skutvik at online.no]

Good New Year's Morning All

31 Dec. Ron wrote:

Bo previously:
> > I may not be a math wizard, but at least I know that differential
> > calculation i NOT "rounding to a whole". Beside this kind (2+2=5)
> > idiocy is what would give the MOQ a bad name. 

Ron:
> That kind of idiocy is what is known as precision. Even in
> differential calculation. To someone with an 5th grade level
> understanding of mathematics, it would seem like idiocy.

?????????????

Ron originally:
> > > therefore 2+2=4 is based on abstract symbols that have no
> > > corresponding experience. 
 
Bo previously:
> > "Symbols/what is symbolized" along with "abstract/concrete"  are SOM
> > offshoots. The "concrete" that the "abstract" refers to may be an
> > "abstract" in itself, in the same sense that a symbol may symbolize
> > another symbol, but that does not shake the SOM foundations. Therefore
> > is Pirsig's new definition of intellect (manipulation of symbols that
> > have no corresponding experience) futile. Intellect is the "symbol/what
> > is symbolized" distinction!!!!   

Ron: 
> You say: "Symbols/what is symbolized" along with "abstract/concrete" 
> are SOM offshoots. then say:  Intellect is the "symbol/what is
> symbolized" distinction!!!!  which leads to the statement that
> intellect is an SOM offshoot. 

Listen: Things happened the way described in ZAMM, the Greek 
started their inquiry into eternal principles - the truth beyond the god-
ruled existence - which ended with the notion of a real world and one 
illusory, with Aristotle "Substance/Form" something Pirsig calls the 
first recognizable SOM. This grew in fits and starts up through the 
ages reaching ever new variations and offshoots - with Descartes 
the mind/matter one - then the empiricists who started drawing the 
impossible conclusions from this dualisms ... and the rest is history. 
The point is that Pirsig calls this SOM in retrospect and that all 
dualism were SOM offshoots. In retro-retrospect I point to the 
indications of this being the intellectual level and then all dualisms 
become intellectual offshoots. See? 

> This is very interesting Bodvar, how is intellect an SOM offshoot when
> you contend that SOM = the intellectual level?      

Ditto.

Ron:
> You ought to read Aristotles metaphysics.

You ought to move out of SOM and on to the MOQ.

Bo before:
> > Thinking - INTELLIGENCE - has nothing to do with INTELLECT. This is the
> > hang-up that some of you seem unable to snap out of. Animals do not
> > "say" to themselves (my crow for instance)  "let's see, how can I get to
> > this food", but it surely manipulated former experience of how things
> > work and arrived at a solution. I have given it some extra food on extra
> > long strings to see it at work  OK, I know you just write this to tease
> > me, so a Happy New Year to you in Philadelphia (was it?)

Ron:
> You seem to be equating memory with intelligence.
> Happy new year to you also. 

Yes, the Random Access type of the relatively higher species is 
clearly an important part of intelligence.

Bodvar