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

[Mary]

Hello Joe and Bo,

 [Bo to Joe] But right now the said "logic itself" has brought me some
qualms: If
1+1=2 is something even Quality is subordinated, then IT (logic) is
the most basic reality there is. This we better come to grips with.
What do you think .....no new levels or roamings though ;-)
 
I think you kinda have to take the 1+1=2 thing with a grain of salt.  It's
just a convenient short-hand because there is an infinity of numbers between
any two other numbers.  Everything we do in mathematics is based on ignoring
the infinite, so Quality is not subordinate to 1+1=2, because this is not
strictly true.

Infinitely yours,
Mary

-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of Joseph Maurer
Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2010 4:53 PM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] Where does logic itself belong inside the MOQ?

On 1/1/10 11:48 PM, "skutvik at online.no" <skutvik at online.no> wrote:

On Saturday 1 January 2010 11: 48 PM Bo writes:

<snip>
If you say what I believe you say, we agree. DQ will not "become
whatever I say it is". The known static sequence is mandatory, the
intellectual level could not spring out of the inorganic. And by the way,
this may be the reason behind much misunderstanding of the MOQ.
See: SOM postulates that "mind emerges from matter" and if one
draws a parallel here Inorganic=Matter/Intellect=Mind one gets the
twisted MOQ that haunts this site, namely that the 4th. level is "mind",
but MOQ's 1st. level is NOT matter and MOQ's 4th. level is NOT
mind. 
 
But right now the said "logic itself" has brought me some qualms: If
1+1=2 is something even Quality is subordinated, then IT (logic) is
the most basic reality there is. This we better come to grips with.
What do you think .....no new levels or roamings though ;-)
 
Bodvar
 
Hi Bo and all,

DQ undefined. SQ defined.

Imho  In a mathematical description of reality SQ is a defined 1.
Definition is necessary for logic.   Mathematics is a conception like SQ
while DQ remains a perception beyond definition.

In MOQ DQ is undefined.  It and looks up and down, thereby losing the
rigidity needed for a definition necessary to mathematics.   MOQ upholds
truthfully the metaphysical value DQ which is indescribable in a
mathematical language since it is not defined, but still perceived.

DQ is the base point for a direction of + and ­ in a metaphysical schema for
evolution and cannot be described as 0 and retain any meaning for
metaphysics.  DQ becomes both + in evolution and ­ in definition and remains
the same.  

Higher or lower levels in existence describe evolution in reality.
Mathematical logic is destructive of such existence by insisting on a
defined symbol which ignores existence in its search for definition.

Existence is a positive in the negative environment of a violence which
would deprive me of my existence    Mathematical logic is valueless looking
to + or - as only up or down.   For DQ and evolution the logic of
mathematics fails in determining whether 0 is positive or negative.
Mathematics loses focus and returns an error message when dividing by 0.
Logic is destroyed.

SQ/DQ is 1/0 indeterminate, error lurks there. 0 is the base for opposing
directions + and ­.   Division by 0 is indeterminate and outside mathematics
the logic of 1.  Therefore in the sense of present or absent, + or -, words
are necessary.  Who knows?

DQ/SQ 0/1=0. Decisive but no hint of evolution, an order in existence!
Accountability for my actions is assured through a free (undefined) choice.
This suggests that DQ is a defined order in existence, evolution.    It has
a positive direction without a determination of Direction +/-. Decision
follows the direction of DQ the undefined in SQ ordered existence.  What
level?    

Ordered decision is SQ.  Logic, an ordered decision, demands the definition
of 1.  1/0 is indeterminate, no logic possible.  Decisions 0/1 indicates
that evolution starts from 0!  DQ is indeterminate when describing levels.
I just can¹t decide. SQ is the necessary element for a description of
levels.  In undefined DQ the placement of I which is indeterminate and free
determines which direction I will go to approach 1 which is defined. What I
decide to do sometimes from the influence of DQ is illogical‹free-will.  But
when I do it the level of evolution is determined sometimes wrongly.
Morality!

The level of evolution in our actions is not necessarily consciousness, the
highest level we achieve.  Rather any DQ level of evolution can decide any
action.  Social laws of morality SQ determine actions when we are unaware in
levels in evolution.  The Social level, in its emotional pull for a
decision, can decide from an unknown level in evolution and imposes
restrictions on behavior beyond metaphysical justification, thereby causing
a justified rebellion.

Intention follows DQ in SQ morality. Your description of the Taliban¹s
abstraction of the authority of the ruler at the social level to create an
all-powerful deity, describes how DQ can be misused to overthrow logic.   I
do not know what I am doing is the rule of the day for a lot of actions in
war and peace!  Gravity, instinct, consciousness, all DQ, become decision
makers, willy-nilly, in DQ/SQ reality.  I choose to do what I am doing,
free-will, sometimes does not recognize evolution and prison is a proper
response!  

Undefined DQ empowers my action rather than SQ 1.  I know of no logic for
the undefined except evolution, an order in existence, morality!  The
adherence to scriptures of the past with an ordered existence has become
confused by SQ, mathematical precision.

The need for a greater emphasis on the reality of differing levels in
existence, evolution, a supposition in philosophical circles, is one answer
to morality. Without a sense of evolution I define 1 from any level,
wily-nily, and my actions promote chaos.  It is not patently obvious in a
mathematical driven society that in evolution the 1 of the inorganic level
is not the 1 of the intellectual level, etc., after all 1 is 1 static
reasoning.  Logic becomes hopelessly entangled in a mathematical precision
inimical to common sense.

How can I experience the undefined?  Metaphysics is 1.  DQ/SQ!  Mathematics
is 1, 1+1=2.  The undefined resides in MOQ a relative (which level of
evolution) view of 1.  DQ is indefinable, an order in existence, evolution.
Definition follows SQ. There is order in existence, metaphysics, evolution.
Experience is DQ/SQ and I am held responsible for what I do.  I abide by an
order in existence incorporated hopefully in local laws to stay out of jail
which have been proven wrong many times.  So much for logic!

1/0 is indefinite. Logic demands definition.  I cannot jump on my horse and
ride off in all directions.  Mathematics is not metaphysics.  DQ is not 0.
DQ is undefined in the relationship to a defined 1.  Definition requires
something to be defined.   Mathematics 1 is a secondary relationship to the
existential evolutionary forces, the metaphysics of reality, DQ/SQ.

IMHO Joe

> Hi Joe
> 
> 31 Dec. you wrote:
> 
>> My admiration for what you have achieved in your understanding of
>> Pirsig is boundless. I am reminded of a limerick: There was a young
>> fellow named Dick who had a corkscrew _____.  He went on a long lost
>> hunt for a girl with a corkscrew ______.  When he found her he fell
>> over dead!  She had a left-hand thread.
> 
> Wow! You are in the mood today ;.)
> 
>> Maybe I have a left-hand thread, but my roaming started when I was 12
>> and has continued through pre-Socratics, up through Pirsig.    I don¹t
>> know what is my level of understanding?  I don¹t even remember all the
>> questions I have asked.  There is no doubt in my "mind" of your
>> achievement with SOL....
> 
> Thanks for the good words, as told ZAMM's identification of a SOM
> and the promise of a development beyond it that was - and still is -
> my obsession. 
> 
>>  When I find the description of an evolution which follows the model of
>> the musical octave I am amazed.  I found it early on like 60 years ago.
> 
> This was  bit mysterious, please elaborate.
> 
>> Now ³logic² haunts me!  SOM is thoroughly discredited! The undefined
>> becomes whatever I say it is?  This is wrong!  Somehow I must
>> incorporate the undefined in my sense of evolution. Hence Gravity,
>> Instinct, Consciousness seem to be characteristics in an
>> undefined/defined evolution.
> 
> If you say what I believe you say, we agree. DQ will not "become
> whatever I say it is". The known static sequence is mandatory, the
> intellectual level could not spring out of the inorganic. And by the way,
> this may be the reason behind much misunderstanding of the MOQ.
> See: SOM postulates that "mind emerges from matter" and if one
> draws a parallel here Inorganic=Matter/Intellect=Mind one gets the
> twisted MOQ that haunts this site, namely that the 4th. level is "mind",
> but MOQ's 1st. level is NOT matter and MOQ's 4th. level is NOT
> mind. 
> 
> But right now the said "logic itself" has brought me some qualms: If
> 1+1=2 is something even Quality is subordinated, then IT (logic) is
> the most basic reality there is. This we better come to grips with.
> What do you think .....no new levels or roamings though ;-)
> 
> Bodvar
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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/


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/