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

[Magnus Berg]

Hi John

> "Royce insisted that the pragmatists, whose fundamental expediency provides
> no guide for making qualitative value judgements of one ideal over another,
> must choose his acts on the basis of the mere quantities of value available,
> thus, he is one who cries "cash, cash" in a world that is morally bankrupt.
> The Philosophy of Loyalty warns that there are no ideals, fractional or
> otherwise, that can exist outside the human will whose commitment gives them
> life."
>
> John Clendenning, The Life and Thought of Josiah Royce,

Ok, so this "Philosophy of Loyalty" is Royce's child? That quote seems to give 
it a rather human-centric stance, but I guess it's larger than that.

> Well... I respectfully disagree with a few aspects of your statement there
> Magnus.  First off, how can "others" explain the gist of his investigations
> without reading him?  And nobody's read Royce in depth or at all, as far as
> I've seen for the months I've been poking him into the conversation.  He's
> prolific, deep and sometimes difficult, so I'm skeptical anyone out there is
> any sort of authority that you should take their word.

Ok, I'll take your word for it. :)

And thanks for the additional pointers, perhaps I'll get some time to read some 
of it.


> The way I use "logic" is there are different logics, just like there are
> different geometrys.  The logic of human affairs certainly doesn't follow
> the cause and effect rules of logic on the inorganic level, but there are
> observable rules, just the same.  "Do unto others as you would have them do
> unto you."  Is a rule of social logic, for instance.

Yes, different logics. I'd say every major field of research has one of its own, 
each corresponding to one level. However, the further up the level ladder you 
get, the logic gets less and less exact and useful.

>> The stumble block is the levels and their borders, each level has its own
>> rules and they can *not* be expressed in terms of each other's rules. That's
>> what the MoQ adds to the equation of our reality and SOM and other systems
>> seems to have missed. Reality is simply much more complex than others seem
>> to think, and the levels are what makes it that much more complex.
>
> Perhaps the levels create more complexity in the study of reality as a
> whole, but they make comprehension at the discrete level, much simpler, imo.

Yes, absolutely! I wasn't implying they were a bad thing, I meant the levels are 
what make reality such an intricate place, but our understanding of the levels 
is what will make us understand it.

> Good to hear from you Magnus; do you all you "old hands" usually drop in
> around New Years to touch bases?  It's interesting to see so many popping
> in.

Oh, I didn't know. Perhaps we just get some more time on our hands to spend on 
contemplating the past year. I also archive MD posts each year and usually spend 
some time eying through the subjects at least.

	Magnus