[MD] Nonrelativizably Used Predicates

[Tuukka Virtaperko]

Mark,

> Mark:
> You seek to provide a description to Quality, but in a manner which
> does not make it derivative.  MoQ can have the tendency to make that
> which is motion, motionless.  In mathematics, this conundrum was
> solved by people such as Neuton and Liebnitz.  That is, they could
> present motion in itself.  In fact they provided means by which motion
> could be converted to the static, and back again.
>
> With Quality we have something that cannot be made relative.
> Therefore, there is no descriptive power which can be used to relate
> to Quality.  Is this what you mean by a nonrelativisible predicate?

Tuukka:
Yes. Metaphorical descriptions, such as comparing quality to arete, are 
possible, but they cannot, even in theory, be logically formalized.


> Mark:
> It would seem that you are uncovering a technique by which one can
> circumvent this paradox.  The problem lies in the descriptive
> limitations of language and this problem can be avoided through
> mathematics.  The number two exists outside of any real context.  One
> cannot point to "two".  However, "two" can be used for descriptive
> reasons.  This is an area of human reason that exists completely in
> the abstract, and has no experiential component.  I am sure I will
> never bump into a "two"

Tuukka:
Yes. "Circumvention" is a quite appropriate word. Even though I cannot 
define Quality or Dynamic Quality, just like Pirsig couldn't, I have 
here presented a logical definition of the reason why they cannot be 
defined.

> Mark:
>
> If my understanding is somewhat correct as to your intent, I would
> suggest that you do not try to satisfy the philosophical needs of
> relating everything to something else, but stick within the
> mathematical confines for a time.  Abstract math often seems useless
> until it is found that it can be used for something.  Topology is a
> good example.  Set theory within topology has a mind of its own.  In
> fact, I am sure you have heard of homotopy (Poincare), where if one
> math can be continuously deformed into another math, they are
> homotopic.
>
> It would seem that so long as you understand the conceptual framework
> of what you are doing, any answers that result can ultimately be
> returned to the world of the literary.  Einstein played with a variety
> of different maths, and came across an equality between energy and
> mass.  This is not what he was seeking, and he was surprised by it.
> After the fact, it seemed obvious.  In fact, why did not physicists
> see this before?  The reason was, because the math did not exist.
>
> Carry on Tuukka.  See where your thought experiments get you.  Don't
> worry about the feedback.  If you do discover something, others will
> ask "why didn't I see that?".
>
>

Tuukka:
Thanks a lot, Mark! I have already found something I didn't expect. 
Attempting to write a letter to Pirsig made me come up with a lot of new 
things. I was not yet ready to describe my work to Pirsig, even though I 
was eager to do so. But I knew I might not be... this is just how my 
mind works. I need to direct the attention of other people to my work in 
order to get inspired to do it better. It may seem selfish, but I feel 
no guilt. It's a work in progress - the pencil is mightier than the pen. 
Thank you everyone, so far, for being interested of my work. I have 
updated MOQ.FI on recent progress, but will not recommend such 
incomplete texts for reading.

Best regards,
Tuukka