[MD] Intellect Worship

[Joseph Maurer]

On 10/8/09 10:46 PM, "markhsmit" <markhsmit at aol.com> wrote:

<snip>
It is quite easy to be bewitched by intellect, and succumb
to its enchantment.  If one uses the philosophy of Wittgenstein
for language (or that for thought, by Kant), are these tools by
which one can understand the laws of the intellectual level.
Is there a scientific approach (since really the demarkation
between science and logic is a very grey area)?
 
If so, I was interested in the applications of mathematical
logic to Quality.  Math does not have the subjective language
component to it, but is very logical.  Areas such as symmetry
and group theory have direct analogies to MOQ, I believe.
Has any one discussed mathematical philosophy?
Wittgenstein became very scientific towards the end of his
life.
<snip>

Hi Willblake2 and all,

Imho A fly in the ointment of mathematics to understanding reality is
evolution.  Mathematical logic describes evolution only by analogy and
metaphor.  1 must be redefined at each level from an analogous 1/0. Now
there is no final paradigm for evolution.  Pirsig proposes 4 levels. The
intellectual level, defined as S/O, cannot be the final level as there is
great meaning found in undefined analogies and metaphors.  There is
something undefined in the activity of heroes like Pirsig.  I attribute his
vision to an exposure to a long held esoteric tradition of indefinable
higher social, and a higher intellectual level, which are levels in
consciousness.

Morality follows evolution in that the lower gives way to the higher.  A
pebble and an amoeba are on different levels.

Evolution, then, becomes the arbiter for morality, lower to higher.  There
is much discussion about the levels of evolution. I follow the esoteric
tradition of seven levels with the 6th and 7th levels being levels in
consciousness only.  Understanding the metaphysics of the hero, Pirsig,
requires many words for DQ/SQ, and 1/0 at each new level.  Mathematical
logic cannot keep the analogies and metaphors of evolution behind rigid
logical bars except by a metaphorical 1, which receives validity from the 0
of evolution.  All imho.

Joe

> I suppose you are right John, Zen is mentioned somewhere...
> 
> 
> If each level has independent rules and laws, then we are
> speaking more of the independent circles of Kierkegaard,
> Once a transition is made to the new circle, it does not 
> relate to the other and operates independently.
> 
> So, I am interested in the intellectual level.  Without getting
> too much into Wittgenstein (who I guess went from one
> circle to another), and not belaboring the point of the impact
> of language on philosophy, is language another aspect of 
> dynamic Quality?
> 
> It is quite easy to be bewitched by intellect, and succumb
> to its enchantment.  If one uses the philosophy of Wittgenstein
> for language (or that for thought, by Kant), are these tools by
> which one can understand the laws of the intellectual level.
> Is there a scientific approach (since really the demarkation
> between science and logic is a very grey area)?
> 
> If so, I was interested in the applications of mathematical
> logic to Quality.  Math does not have the subjective language
> component to it, but is very logical.  Areas such as symmetry
> and group theory have direct analogies to MOQ, I believe.
> Has any one discussed mathematical philosophy?
> Wittgenstein became very scientific towards the end of his
> life.
> 
> I am not saying that MOQ is based on math, just simply that
> expressions in math can convey similar intuitive understanding
> that logic does.  For example Quality = f(DQ, SQ), that is 
> Quality is a function of dynamic and static quality.  If dynamic
> quality is acting upon static quality, then we can apply
> an equation that I brought up recently that is: Force equals
> mass times acceleration, or Quality is equal to static quality
> times dynamic quality.  Is the relationship multiplicative?
> Can we say that an aspect of Quality is the number of 
> interacting intellects and the rate of interaction?
> 
> Also, then it would be possible to determine if dynamic
> quality is changing in time, that is the derivative of
> dynamic quality.  Does dynamic quality go in spurts or
> cycles the same way that evolution describes other sciences?
> 
> Oh, to many questions.  My background is in science so 
> perhaps I am seeking understanding in the wrong way.
> 
> Cheers,
> Willblake2
> 
> On Oct 8, 2009, at 9:10:47 AM, "John Carl" <ridgecoyote at gmail.com> wrote:
> From:   "John Carl" <ridgecoyote at gmail.com>
> Subject:    Re: [MD] Intellect Worship
> Date:   October 8, 2009 9:10:47 AM PDT
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 7:03 PM, markhsmit <markhsmit at aol.com> wrote:
> So a
>> 
>> fundamental aspect of Quality is communication (I'm sure this is
>> all old stuff to you guys). The more things interact through
>> dynamic quality, the more they evolve. So is it communication
>> or some undefinable incomprehensible fuzzy thing?
>> 
> 
> Somebody recently pointed out (Steve?) that while each level of existence
> has relatively independent rules and laws, the interactions between levels,
> called codes, are their own special things. I'd say the evolution of
> communication definitely follows this model - the artful code of interaction
> between intellect and society.
> 
> 
> But the fundamental ability of the brain remains the same, so
>> are the ideas new? Has all this been thought of before?
>> I believe so. Quality seems to have incorporated Taoism
>> (or Buddhism) with a splash of evolution and systems theory.
>> I think this is great, because it modernizes existing Eastern
>> knowledge, and allows us to relate to it. My question is why
>> does not MOQ reference some of these well established
>> philosophies, rather than trying to reinvent the wheel?
>> 
>> 
> What? Dude, the name of the book that started it all was ZEN and the art of
> moto maintenance. You don't think Pirsig referenced the "well established
> philosophies" throughout that book? And Lila? Think again.
> 
> Think again. I like that. That's the key to keeping intellect dynamic -
> thinking again.
> 
> 
> 
>> I suppose increased communication is being opposed by
>> the amount of time we have to think. There is no time to
>> sit in a cave and contemplate. Too much to read, not
>> enough time.
>> 
>> Gotta go watch something on TV.
> 
> 
> oh plbbbttt. Just do me a favor - don't watch anything "educational"
> That's the worst use of tv, to transmit intellectual values through a
> social medium. IMMORAL.
> 
> It's ok to watch dancing with the stars or Porn, it's NOT ok to watch the
> history channel or discovery.
> 
> ;)
> 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/
> 
> 
> 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/