[MD] MOQ and SOM

[Ham Priday]

To the two 'J's --

On 6/29/09 2:14 PM, AM, Joseph Maurer wrote to John Carl:

> As far as logic goes, mathematics 1+1=2 is the most rigorous logic.
> Even a creator cannot program a computer to divide 1 by 0.
> There is a fault line in such a perception, leading to an error message.
> Mathematical logic is not metaphysical logic.  Which one is more
> comprehensive?

Here's my solution to your "fault line" error.  (I suppose John will call 
this "picking and defining my game.")  But here goes ...

Mathematical values are valid only within the scope of finite dimensions. 
Therefore, in existential logic, one divided by nothing remains a unity 
because no division is consummated.  However, in metaphysical logic, unity 
represents an absolute source and zero represents "nothingness", a negation 
of that unity. This negation represents existence -- a relational world of 
infinitely differentiated phenomena.

> Aristotle tried to cross that fault line by describing a divided 
> existence.
> In his psychology he proposed an intentional existence for S, a real
> existence for O, thereby creating SOM metaphysics.   Pirsig, in a
> Metaphysics Of Quality, accepts DQ as perceivable, but indefinable.
> Where is the logic in that?

Existence IS divided.  This is true whether the relational world is "real" 
or only experiential (i.e., perceivable).  Therefore any logic applied to 
metaphysics must accommodate that truth.  Is it then a logical error to 
conclude that 1 divided by 0 = Infinity?  If so, I take full credit for the 
error.

Would you kindly explain what you mean by "an intentional existence"?  Who 
or what is the "intendor"?

> I accept Pirsig¹s description of evolution, and conclude that evolution
> can be perceived as a moral hierarchy in existence.  He proposes four
> levels, but I prefer to use the musical scale for 7 levels of evolution.
> I think Aristotle had the right idea of dividing existence, but he got it 
> wrong.
> Evolution, MOQ, is a fuller concept than SOM.  I do not perceive logic
> in a hierarchy of existence.  The perception of DQ is of the moment, the
> thousand-tongued Hydra.

Evolution can be perceived as a hierarchy of any number of levels.  But why 
do we need a level hierarchy?  I can't see any relation of the seven-tone 
musical scale to Pirsig's hierarchy of Quality levels.  This reminds me of 
the infamous "string theory" of the universe which went from 5 dimensions to 
11, and then 12, before it was replaced by the theory of parallel universes. 
Have you ever defined what these levels represent?

Also, in what way did Aristotle or Descartes get it wrong by positing 
existence as a subject/object dualism?

Thanks, gentlemen,
Ham

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

On 6/29/09 7:55 AM, "John Carl" <ridgecoyote at gmail.com> wrote:

> Huh?  There's all kinds of logic in evolution:  can't have two fathers
> simultaneously, genetic rules, etc.  I guess its how you look at "logic".
> Considered as "the rules of the game" then its just a matter of picking 
> and
> defining your game.