[MD] A fine mess

[skutvik at online.no]

Andrè. 

10 Dec.

Bodvar before:
> I'm an old man and can only manage it "once a day". Regarding the
> previous logic issue I can't see how it can be expanded. 2+2 is 4 in
> MOQ too, but it's premises brings an in-out-turn of many things. One
> major turn is  from SOM where intellect = mind to MOQ where its 4th.
> level = mind/matter distinction. As long as this isn't understood or
> accepted, the MOQ isn't understood.
 
Andre: 
> This really is very interesting Bodvar! You have triggered a
> 'growing-up' metaphor of mine which made me, at 16 years of age,
> instantly, not understood (not mis- but not) understood. I told
> everyone in my family that I hoped a world was possible wherein 2+2
> could conceivably not be 4. This, from that moment onwards, has
> convinced my family (and many others) that I am crazy, strange,
> different) and, unfortunately that label still follows me to this day.
> BUT, I have been vindicated: the MOQ! Pirsig has shown, through
> Poincarre and others that 2+2=...4 because it is useful. 

I had hoped that it was this part 

    In SOM "intellect" = mind, in MOQ its 4th. level = mind/matter 
    distinction.  

that triggered something, because it is  the "inside-out" turning of it all, 
but along with Ian you find the excitement in the possibility of 2+2 of 
not being 4.  

> It doesn't mean it is necessarily true. It is relative, what do you
> mean by the two's...what do you mean by the relationships..what do you
> mean by this (SOM) 'cause and effect' postulate. 

This resembles Pirsig's effort to create Q-variants of the various 
scientific disciplines, for instance a Q-physics where causation's push 
is replaced by a value' pull, but IMO it's no need to interfere specifically 
with the 4th. level. the MOQ has already interferred by making SOM 
(science, knowledge, reason) its own 4th. static level. 

> There is no 'cause and effect' equivalent when talking about human
> beings. They do not behave as objects! It is only true in math. But I
> am not math...I am a living composition of PoV's and the extent to
> which I want to stick to static patterns, this 'logic' is usefull, but
> to the extent that  I want to respond to DQ it may not be usefull at
> all. It may, in fact, interfere with where DQ leads me. 

I hate being the spoilsport here, but causation and logic isn't only true 
in math. If we classify mathematics as an intellectual pattern (which it 
is) it's about using logic to show that various "principles" are eternally 
valid (See, the Greeks and their "eternal principles" again) 

The social level people calculated with great precision and thus used 
the same LOGIC. They say that the Egyptians knew (what math or 
intellect knows as Pythagoras' Theorem) in their constructing the 
pyramids without caring a bit if the relationships between the legs of a 
triangle is "eternally valid". It just worked!      

If you can stand more of my wise-guyishness. You seem to put things 
upside down, usually the "problem" is if logic and causation is valid 
OUTSIDE humankind. Immanuel Kant postulated that Time, space, 
Causation and Logic don't exist "out there" but are subjective "forms of 
perception" (he called) I regard Kant the ultimate SOM-ist because 
even if saying that  these forms of perception are subjective  he 
postulated something "out there" that these were applied to.

I call Kant a SOMist, but the academical world knows no SOM 
because it is SOM and  his being "ultimate" has the consequence that 
no one has questioned SOM after Kant, his is regarded the "last word". 
Not until Pirsig that is, and yet, we will not make any headway by 
postulating that 2+2=2 may be 5 or that causation don't apply.  

IMO

Bodvar