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

[skutvik at online.no]

Ian, All.

30 Dec. u wrote:

> Still cannot agree with this Bo. It is almost certainly the case that
> logic and numbers underly the physical (and bio, social etc) in ways
> that are more fundamental that SOMism or Intellectual PoV's. 

It looks like agreement ...up to this point. 
 
> But equally clearly it is NOT fundamental to choose the Babylonians or
> Pythagoreans as fundamentally definining when logic became a PoV.

IMO those two demarkated the social - intellect shift of using logic (or 
intelligence).    

> As soon as anyone (any sentient being) started to symbolize such
> "rules" mentally ... they were intellectualizing ... creating
> Intellectual PoV's (how good these patterns are / were depends on
> empirical tests of time.) And these were SOMist patterns too, as I
> explained once before. 

"Symbolizes" ...?  2+2=4 written this way may look "intellectual" but 
dots or dashes, or pebbles is symbols all right and apes can do the 
latter (I'm told) and if so the intellectual level is moved down into the 
biological realm. Logic ITSELF in the sense of number relationships, 
geometrical & mathematical ditto is only intellectual the moment it is 
used the Pythagorean way namely to prove how a relationship it is 
objectively and unswervingly  so.               

> Two apples, one pear and one gooseberry do not make four, UNTIL you
> symbolize (objectify) the discrete objects in the conceptualized
> statement. Then the logical symbology makes sense. Until then 2 + 2 =
> 4 IS (literally) meaningless. It IS a SOMist intellectual pattern.

Well, the (social level) people surely knew that if they counted apples 
they made an an apple symbol. But THAT is not to objectify the 
phenomenon that  2+2 equals 4.  I don't think there is a theorem made 
on that? 

> If you are NOT dealing with objects other "logics" may apply.

Not sure what that means, but what do you make of my musings over 
logic ITSELF as an aspect of Quality? It may not be quite patent 
because logic its not dynamic, 2+2 is always 4. Is it static inorganic 
patterns, i.e. that all relationships emerged with Quality's first static 
manifestation? Inorganic patterns are not necessarily matter as we 
know (the immaterial/material distinction did not occur before intellect).

What do you think?

Bodvar              







> 
> On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 8:36 AM,  <skutvik at online.no> wrote:
> > Hi Andre
> >
> > 29 Dec. u wrote:
> >> Formal logic in the "if A=B, then B=A " sense is truly a SOM
> >> product, but this applied before the intellectual level, and
> >> ancient (social level) people knew that through calculation, and
> >> that this works for animals too is plain as displayed by their
> >> striking intelligence.
> >
> > Andre:
> >> Bodvar, bear with me...so 'formal' logic is not an intellectual
> >> PoV? Please explain.
> >
> > What I meant was that logic as an academical discipline is SOM
> > (intellect) in the same sense that mathematical theorems are, but
> > the mere phenomenon that 2+2=4  is something any intelligent being
> > knows intuitively. Regarding Pythagoras' (the sum of the squares of
> > the legs   ....etc.)  this was known to the  Babylonians (social
> > level) but only with Pythagoras did this become an academical
> > (intellectual) theorem.
> >
> > Remember Pirsig's alleged disproof of the SOL (intellect=S/O) on the
> > grounds that "... logic itself and mathematics have no S/O content
> > ..etc". How could he say that these things are "intellectual
> > patterns", they  have been always and are the base of reality
> > itself? But then, where exactly does logic ITSELF belong in the MOQ?
> > This has given me "gas" (and constipation) Perhaps it is another
> > aspect of Quality, like Beauty? "
> >
> > Transcribing Plato:
> > That two plus two is four, Phaedrus, need we ask anyone to tell us
> > these things"
> >
> 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/
> 
>