[MD] Is there a contradiction in MoQ?

[Tuukka Virtaperko]

Thanks, Mark!


10.9.2011 20:24, 118 kirjoitti:
> Hi T.
> I will give this a shot.
>
> MoQ provides the analogy of dividing our reality into different
> apparitions of Quality.  The intellectual is one of these.  Within the
> framework of discussion (which is social quality), MoQ is a form of
> intellectual quality.  With set theory such as this, there is always a
> contradiction.  While MoQ is a social quality interaction of an
> intellectual quality, it also encompasses itself.  This would be
> similar to the concept of "the set of all sets".  This described set,
> would also include itself, which does not work through standard set
> logic.  This has been resolved (mathematically) by some intelligent
> creators of math theory.  So, it could be said that MoQ is
> intellectual quality and more.


T:
So MOQ is the set of all sets. Is intellect also the set of all sets? If 
yes, we have a contradiction, because intellect is static quality, but 
would also contain Dynamic Quality. If no, there's no contradiction.



> 118:
> So, while MoQ is the social presentation of intellectual quality, it
> is also more than that.  This kind of contradiction is normal in this
> group theory type of analysis, and should not be used as any kind of
> proof that the metaphysics is faulty, for there are many ways around
> this.
>
> We as individuals 'know" what social quality is, and we do not need
> social interaction to tell us this.  Once we enter into the social
> level of quality (as we do through these posts), we cannot turn around
> and define what we are creating.  This would be like a finger pointing
> to itself.  Common intellectual logic falls apart at this point.  It
> would be like each of us trying to "see" ourselves.  It cannot be done
> since the eye cannot see itself.  This has, of course, resulted in a
> false logical premise of Buddhism that the self does not exist.  If I
> do not know anything else, I know I exist, no matter what kind of
> logic is thrown at me to the contrary.
>
> In my book, defining and describing are pretty much the same thing.
> Nothing can be fully defined by language, for there are not enough
> words.  Think of all the ways you could define a house.  We stick to
> simple definitions so that the social level of quality can function.
> With that in mind, I could say that social quality is the expression
> of a group which is distinct from the expression of the self.
> Something more than the self arrises at that level.  One example would
> be words and language.  If there was no other person, we would not
> need language.  By describing social quality through language, we
> create static quality.  This is important since static quality must be
> created to exist.  So I would reverse your statement below to say
> "social quality can be described and becomes through that a form of
> static quality".

T:
If I say: "X is defined" I mean that the intension of X is known. If I 
say: "X is described" I mean the extension of X is known. Further 
explanation can be found here: 
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Intension_and_Extension

> 118:
> In terms of how we describe Intellectual Quality, there are many
> options.  It is an artificial division of Quality for the purposes of
> rhetoric.  I have no problem agreeing on some mutual description of
> intellectual quality, but I am afraid that there are too many
> renegades in this forum to make such a thing useful.  We could make
> the set of intellectual quality encompassing of parts of all levels
> and see where this takes us intellectually.  There is no reason not to
> try this.  The Devil is in the details.
>
> Hope this helps,
> Mark
>