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

[Andre Broersen]

Magnus to John:

As I understood it, Royce was trying to capture all of our reality, including
human behavior such as religion, in terms of logic....
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.

Andre:
Hi Magnus and John.

Cannot but reinforce what Magnus gets at here. The 'simple' logic
applied by SOM does not hold for the MoQ...it does not reflect
experience. LILA is making this abundantly clear.
Logic...the method of interpretation... changes 2-fold: data are data,
this is what Pirsig says...but the ways of 'seeing' the data are
different within the MoQ. Subjects and objects are patterns,
cause-and-effect relationships are re-defined...moral preferences.
This throws new understandings right into our faces. Patterns
confronting/recognising/mutually exploring... patterns.

Not sure Magnus,if the MoQ makes things 'much more complex'. Perhaps
it is so from a SOM context.

The levels make it clearer (for me)...oh oh very presumtuous!

Royce was a Kant fan and , under his influence ( and W. T. Harris),
introduced Kant to the US. Kant, before becoming a philosopher was a
mathematician. Perhaps this attracted Royce.

As far as I understand the Phaedrus/Socrates conversation in ZMM,
logic tries to turn its subject into an object...and it subjugates it
into its own premises. It destroys it whilst the aim of logical
enquiry ought to be the finding of truth...and this is what our
Phaedrus in the classroom found so obnoxious in the professor...he
didn't want to find anything new... he wanted a reinforcement of his
own (intellectual) static patterns.

The MoQ is not logical if the aim is to follow DQ. Krishnamurti said
that the land of truth has no paths. I believe he made a profound
statement here.

The MoQ is a guide but no clear paths are set out. That is why Pirsig
insists on the inclusion of, so called, contradictions.

Contradictions lead to truths...to freedom.

Not the multiple choices of trillions of paths. Trillions of choices
are a sign of unfreedom.

I am getting carried away.

All imho

Andre