[MD] MOQ and SOM

[Joseph Maurer]

Hi Ham and all,

1/1=1
1/0=?
A computer programmed with the most logical language possible will not
answer 1/0.


On 6/29/09 2:29 PM, "Ham Priday" <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:

> 
> 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.
> 
Mathematical logic does not declare finite dimensions false in any rational
sense, except division by 0 which is irrrational. Mathematical logic has a
sign of infinity for unending computations.  Dimensions are the domain of
physics.  "Therefore" is imaginary. Mathematical values are logical;
Otherwise?????
 
1/0=i
 
After writing the above my computer which is programmed by the most
rigorously logical program refuses to do any more computations on the key
pad.
 
Since: 1/1=1 I have no idea how you divide logic into metaphysical,
existential, absolute?  Evolution describes an order in existence yes or no.
If yes then the order is moral lower to higher?

>> 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"?
> 
Existence is divided by Aristotle into a real existence for the body and
immaterial soul.  Intentional existence was derived from a perception that
thoughts and decisions are immaterial, that the soul has a separate
existence from the body. Is it logical to attribute truth to a perception
that existence is divisible into intentional and real existence? Is a simple
metaphysical declaration valid without further evidence?.  I answer Mu!
Un-ask the question about a "logical error"!.  How can nonsense be an error?

>> 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?
> 
For the sentient being he proposed a body/soul division. This complicates
metaphysics. For the body cosmic existence. For the soul, a mind/will
combination, which requires the capability of creating ideas with
intentional existence for the comprehension of differing realities.  The
mind becomes a creator from nothing by abstracting the essence from the
image and giving it intentional existence in a mind from the intentional
existence of the soul which is beyond materiality.  Way beyond Occam's
Razor.
 
How do you perceive levels in existence?  From a moral sense of lower to
higher!  Existence comes in 7 flavors, colors of the rainbow, the musical
scale from Do through Ti, etc! Morality!
 
Occam's razor.  No need to complicate things.

> Thanks, gentlemen,
> Ham
> 
Thanks, Ham
Joe
> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 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/