[MD] lila's soliloquy

[118]

Hi Tuukka

On 3/30/12, Tuukka Virtaperko <mail at tuukkavirtaperko.net> wrote:
> Mark
> I agree that naming our theory Sets of Quality could seem to imply that
> it's only set theory. But it's not. It's not "Set theory of Quality",
> it's "Sets of Quality" with sets and other stuff.

That's cool.  I guess the devil is in the details.
>
> -Tuukka
>
>
>
> 30.3.2012 16:50, Tuukka Virtaperko wrote:
>> Mark,
>>> Mark:
>>> Perhaps, as you say, set theory is not a useful mathematical
>>> metaphysics with which to present MoQ.
>>
>> Tuukka:
>> I regret to inform you that you've gotten it wrong now. The MoQ cannot
>> be adequately expressed by means of set theory. But that's not what I
>> did. The MoQ can be expressed adequately by means of mathematics. All
>> mathematics is not set theory, and our work on the concept of Dynamic
>> Quality is not founded on set theory, but non-set-theoretic logic. We
>> don't always use set theory. Sometimes we do, sometimes we don't.
>>
>> -Tuukka

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "adequately", for this would
be in the eyes of the beholder.  That it is not adequate for you means
you need to make it more complicated.  There is something to be said
for simplicity though, as "inadequate" as it may sound :-).  When
taking a random sample in statistics, there comes a point when it does
not matter how many more samples are taken, the answer confidence
interval is pretty much the same.  Maybe the same thing applies to the
complexity of the MoQ you are presenting.  A point of "saturation".

>>
>>> Mark:
>>>
>>> We cannot even talk about static quality, strictly speaking, for
>>> static quality cannot encompass itself.
>>
>> Tuukka:
>> This is quite possible. I think I should talk with Timo about this. I
>> would have already done so, but he didn't answer the phone. The
>> question I should ask is "is 'relativizably used predicates' a
>> relativizably used predicate"?

We need to be careful that we do not enter into a paradox.  Maybe Timo
knows how to avoid these.  A "Pair of Ducks" is not always the best
solution to a problem.   Beware of quackery...
>>
>>> Mark: Around and around we
>>> go then, saying that what one presents is static quality and dynamic
>>> quality cannot be approached.
>>
>> Tuukka:
>> Another misconception. Dynamic Quality can be expressed by language,
>> and that is actually frequently done. In poetry, this may result in a
>> masterpiece. In philosophy, this tends to result in a problem. I'm not
>> saying Dynamic Quality cannot be approached. I'm saying it makes to
>> sense to perform the act of "approaching Dynamic Quality". I will try
>> to elaborate further. Even if it were possible, the approach itself
>> wouldn't make sense. Even if the approach WORKED, it wouldn't make
>> sense in a definable way. Unless someone manages to define it, but
>> then it would again become static.

This "problem" only arises when we mistake the words for DQ.  "I am so
excited that I can hardly stand", well, no, don't take me too
literally, those are just words.  In fact I am sitting down now, go
figure...
>>
>>> Mark:
>>>
>>> So let us get past this static quality paradox, and move on.  Let us
>>> say that the distinction between DQ and sq is useful, and can bring
>>> about enlightenment.
>>
>> Tuukka:
>> Of course it's useful. From a set theoretic point of view, it's an
>> appealing simplification. From your point of view, it may even be "how
>> it is". You are free to think that it's a flaw of set theory - not a
>> flaw of the MOQ - that all of MOQ can't be expressed by means of set
>> theory.

It is more than a simplification; it is a premise which can bring
about understanding which is anything but simple.  In fact awareness
is nothing at all.

I am not saying that there is a flaw in set theory.  It all depends
what one wants to do with it.  If a computer user wants to use the CD
tray as a coffee holder and the CD tray breaks, does that mean that
there is a flaw with such holder?

All of MoQ will never be expressed.  Every day there is a new
expression.  However, lets integrate all the expressions and find a
set which encompasses this integration.  This would imply that all
expressions that are going on about MoQ follow a certain formula.  It
is this formula that I am interested in.  This is why I go into all
sorts of seemingly disparate directions, like Hermeticism, physics,
Gnostic understanding, mathematics, video games, and bushels of wheat
in a Van Gogh painting.  It is to find the formula.  When in the
forest, one only sees trees.  The words in this forum are a bunch of
trees, but what makes them grow as they do?
>>
>> I just solved a problem for you. You should be grateful. I'm not
>> saying everyone should take some certain point of view to the MOQ. I'm
>> saying that I'm now taking the set theoretic point of view, and within
>> that viewpoint, that's the way how things are.
>>
>> I value precision. I maybe don't understand why you want to use a
>> viewpoint that I find vague. I have no objection to you taking that,
>> so don't you object set theory either.

I do not see my viewpoint as vague.  In fact it is crystal clear.  As
precise as a diamond bullet entering my head.  This reminds me of a
quote from Apocalypse Now:

    Kurtz: "I've seen horrors... horrors that you've seen. But you
have no right to call me a murderer. You have a right to kill me. You
have a right to do that... but you have no right to judge me. It's
impossible for words to describe what is necessary to those who do not
know what horror means. Horror... Horror has a face... and you must
make a friend of horror. Horror and moral terror are your friends. If
they are not, then they are enemies to be feared. They are truly
enemies! I remember when I was with Special Forces... seems a thousand
centuries ago. We went into a camp to inoculate some children. We left
the camp after we had inoculated the children for polio, and this old
man came running after us and he was crying. He couldn't see. We went
back there, and they had come and hacked off every inoculated arm.
There they were in a pile. A pile of little arms. And I remember...
I... I... I cried, I wept like some grandmother. I wanted to tear my
teeth out; I didn't know what I wanted to do! And I want to remember
it. I never want to forget it... I never want to forget. And then I
realized... like I was shot... like I was shot with a diamond... a
diamond bullet right through my forehead. And I thought, my God... the
genius of that! The genius! The will to do that! Perfect, genuine,
complete, crystalline, pure. And then I realized they were stronger
than we, because they could stand that these were not monsters, these
were men... trained cadres. These men who fought with their hearts,
who had families, who had children, who were filled with love... but
they had the strength... the strength... to do that. If I had ten
divisions of those men, our troubles here would be over very quickly.
You have to have men who are moral... and at the same time who are
able to utilize their primordial instincts to kill without feeling...
without passion... without judgment... without judgment! Because it's
judgment that defeats us."


Any way back to reality without judgement...
I am not objecting to set theory, for this is what Pirsig presents as
well, so you are in good company.  For Pirsig there are levels, like a
pyramid, with intellect at the top.  I prefer to see it as concentric
circles with the inorganic as the largest circle and the intellect as
the innermost circle.  The intellect is like a distillation of all
else.  Well, here I go talking about Alchemy, again.  You can accuse
me of being vague.  Then again, one needs to be lost before one can be
found.

Keep up your problem solving, I will benefit from it.

Cheers,
Mark
>
> 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/md/archives.html
>