[MD] Intellect Worship

[Joseph Maurer]

On 10/21/09 9:49 PM, "markhsmit" <markhsmit at aol.com> wrote:

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.
<snip>

 

Hi Willblake2 and all,

As I read Pirsig, I find him in the pragmatist camp undefined DQ, defined
SQ.   As I read your statement : ³Evolution as a paradigm:² I find myself in
an idealist camp.  I am confused!

I do not know how to reconcile the two points of view from a metaphysical
perspective except by an agreement to disagree.

Joe

> 
> 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
> 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/