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

[skutvik at online.no]

Hi Ron

30 Dec. u wrote:

> 2+2 may equal 5 if the value of 2 is high enough. 2.26 (rounded to 2) +
> 2.26(rounded to 2) equals 4.52 (which rounds to 5) All measurement is
> this way, all math is based in measurement. Measurement means limiting,
> limiting, rounding to a whole. 

I may not be a math wizard, but at least I know that differential 
calculation i NOT "rounding to a whole". Beside this kind (2+2=5) 
idiocy is what would give the MOQ a bad name.   

> therefore 2+2=4 is based on abstract symbols that have no
> corresponding experience. 

"Symbols/what is symbolized" along with "abstract/concrete"  are SOM 
offshoots. The "concrete" that the "abstract" refers to may be an 
"abstract" in itself, in the same sense that a symbol may symbolize 
another symbol, but that does not shake the SOM foundations. 
Therefore is Pirsig's new definition of intellect (manipulation of symbols 
that have no corresponding experience) futile. Intellect is the 
"symbol/what is symbolized" distinction!!!!        

> It is an abstraction based on the concept of a whole entity. 

?????????????????

> whether animals are capable of this sort of conceptualization is
> debatable since this is what Pirsig describes as defining the human
> intellectual level "the manipulation of abstract symbols with have no
> corresponding experience"

Thinking - INTELLIGENCE - has nothing to do with INTELLECT. This 
is the hang-up that some of you seem unable to snap out of. Animals 
do not "say" to themselves (my crow for instance)  "let's see, how can I 
get to this food", but it surely manipulated former experience of how 
things work and arrived at a solution. I have given it some extra food 
on extra long strings to see it at work  OK, I know you just write this to 
tease me, so a Happy New Year to you in Philadelphia (was it?) 


Bodvar