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

[Ian Glendinning]

Great to see John bumping into Magnus over Royce (and alternative
logics) - quality in store for those of us in listenting mode.

But I have to agree with Marsha about Bo slipping off the hook again.
Bo ("the derided") has a very narrow logic that brands all other kinds
as either idiocy or woolly when his fails.

Ian
On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 3:50 PM, Magnus Berg <McMagnus at home.se> wrote:
> 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
>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>