[MD] Intellect Worship

[markhsmit]

On Oct 9, 2009, at 2:05:18 PM, "Joseph Maurer" <jhmau at sbcglobal.net> wrote:

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
Hey Joe,
Just got around to this.  I see Evolution as a paradigm.  It is a set of self-referencing 
propositions which exist as a description.  These propositions are self-supporting and
do not exists outside of this paradigm.  The fittest survive, because what survives are 
the fittest.  Fittest=survival.  Two words for the same thing.  As with all paradigms,
this will shift and Evolution will have run its course.

The concept of undefined analogies and metaphors is interesting.  I believe there 
are many of these.  Metaphors that cannot be described, only felt.  Like "the sound
of one hand clapping".  It is through these metaphors that we often must understand
another's sensibility.  If words cannot transfer the information, metaphors or pictures
are used.

I do not believe that mathematics provides rigid logical bars.  It provides simply 
another metaphor.  Mathematics could be considered a bit more abstract than
logical discussion.  The statement that 5+4=9 is self-referencing.  It is saying
that 9 and 5+4 are two ways of saying the exact same thing, "black=black'.
However, by equating these two sides we are provided with a new understanding.
This would be similar to "It is what it is" (something that I believe Platt brought
up in another post).  So: It is = what it is.  That is, It is is saying the same thing
as What it is.  However, when we create this sentence, for some reason we have
new understanding which is perhaps undefined.  This becomes true with
all supporting reasons why it is what it is.  They are simply expanding the 
equation.

When we say that Quality = DQ/SQ, we are again saying that both sides of the
equation mean exactly the same thing.  However, by creating this equation,
we are able to impart information with some subjective meaning.  Now,
perhaps if we once again break DQ and SQ down a bit more in a
formulaic sense we could say that Quality = DQ x SQ.  This would 
have new meaning, implying that the dynamic multiplies the static (and v.v.).
All we have done is taken an expression of equality and made it
more complex.  This type of analysis can only have a proof within
its own paradigm.  My suggestion was that we could perhaps use
simple math to help explain Quality.  We would be combining the
multifaceted words of logic with the formulaic action of one
word on another.

Cheers,
Willblake2