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

[Joseph Maurer]

On 1/10/10 6:20 AM, "Mary" <marysonthego at gmail.com> wrote:

[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
 
Hi Mary and all,

Well said!.  I do not know what  ³infinity of numbers² means?  Is this a
corollary to saying that numbers are necessarily undefined/defined, DQ/SQ as
is all of reality?  Are you reassuring Bo that the ³good² of mathematics is
DQ/SQ?

Is evolution good? Is ignoring the infinite good? Is infinity another aspect
of good?  Is this less logical than DQ/SQ?   Pirsig proposed DQ/SQ to be a
logic for metaphysics.  The undefined is a part of our logical thought
process and is metaphysically true and DQ is undefined..  This is a little
different than saying metaphysics ³ignores the infinite², since that places
infinite outside of logic.  Is Evolution a laughing matter for a
mathematician?   Does mathematical logic accept DQ/SQ?

I was watching an episode of Law and Order on television, and the writer
used the creation of a family of runaways in a large city as equal in logic
to the accepted notion of family.  Murder, rape, theft were OK for the
street family.   They became refugees when the family they were born into
became abusive.

My feeling about the show was that this was possibly OK if there were a
metaphysical ³good² beyond logic DQ.   Anarchy, DQ/SQ, became the
rationalization for ³good². DQ is undefined and if SQ family becomes evil,
creative solutions for the social order of people is good. A differing logic
for a family relationship is not beyond logical existence.  Evolution DQ/SQ
is moral if good is not marginalized. How else could things change?

In metaphysics, DQ is undefined and for mathematics illogical.  From whence
does DQ derive its logic so that DQ/SQ is a reasonable metaphysics?

Imho  Order in Existence!  Evolution!

Joe

> 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/
> 
> 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/