[MD] Trance state

[Joseph Maurer]

On Tuesday 25 March Joe writes:

Hi All,

Evolution is not a syllogism.  Different levels are involved from lower to
higher.  The lower has no definition for the higher level, which speaks an
undefined language to the lower level.  Is mathematics a universal language?

The higher is undefined and cannot enter into a lower syllogism.  Logic
fails when confronted by reality. Mathematical reality cannot explain
evolution.  Magnus proposes a dynamic Big Bang to start mathematical
calculations.  IMO the Social Level lies outside of mathematical
calculation.  What?  Counting the population doesn¹t matter?  Idiot!  Do you
mean that mathematics does not add to what I know? Idiot!

Individual consciousness is an existential level of evolution to the social
level. Individual consciousness starts a parallel octave of evolution of S
only.  It modifies O (gorilla) for its own purposes.  Intellect, higher
social, and higher intellectual levels are of S only.   Wait a minute
intellect is SO, and social is SO. Idiot! You can only train a chimp so far.
So how is metaphysics speaking an undefined language?  How can I know what
you are talking about? Value!  Mystical value is outside of mathematics.
Yes, but not very far!  E,G. quantum!  Just far enough to show that
evolution is not a syllogism.

There is no therefore in evolution to the social level!  Only an apple and
sleep!

Joe

On 11/25/08 12:26 PM, "X Acto" <xacto at rocketmail.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> Bo:
>> Not describing how things really are, is impossible. Forwarding a
>> theory that opens by declaring "..this is NOT how things are" is
>> stillborn.
> 
> Steve:
> 
> Not at all.
> 
> Albert Einstein:
> "Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind, and are not,
> however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world. In our
> endeavour to understand reality we are somewhat like a man trying to
> understand the mechanism of a closed watch. He sees the face and the
> moving hands, even hears it ticking, but he has no way of opening the
> case. If he is ingenious he may form some picture of the mechanism
> which could be responsible for all the things he observes, but he may
> never be quite sure his picture is the only one which could explain
> his observations. He will never be able to compare his picture with
> the real mechanism and he cannot even imagine the possibility of the
> meaning of such a comparison."
> 
> Bo:
> I'm not rying to play the Sophist, but at this high ground there are some
> strange "inside out" turning of metaphysical socks.     
> 
> Ron:
> The turning of the sock you mention is the shifting from the particular
> to the universal. The whole arguement  is that you insist that Quality
> may be universally defined when Pirsig and the rest of us say that
> Quality is of a particular expereince and may not be argued to
> the universal..
> 
> Pyrrhonian skeptic Sextus Empiricus first questioned induction, reasoning that
> a universal rule could not be established from an
> incomplete set of particular instances. He wrote[1]:
>  
> "when they propose to establish the universal from the particulars by means of
> induction, they will effect this by a review of either
> all or some of the particulars. But if they review some, the induction will be
> insecure, since some of the particulars omitted in the
> induction may contravene the universal; while if they are to review all, they
> will be toiling at the impossible, since the particulars
> are infinite and indefinite."
>  
> from wiki
> 
> 
>       
> 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/