[MD] Why does Pirsig write everybody's right about mind and matter although his theses imply the opposite?

X Acto xacto at rocketmail.com
Sun Oct 30 06:40:28 PDT 2016



Sent from my iPhone

> On Oct 20, 2016, at 7:40 AM, Tuukka Virtaperko <mail at tuukkavirtaperko.net> wrote:
> 
> okay, looks like I should've studied Lila's Child better. However, if it's true that "matter comes before mind" and "mind comes before matter" then the MOQ is inconsistent. Obviously, the MOQ is not intended to be inconsistent. Furthermore, resorting to a notion of "complementarity" doesn't make the MOQ consistent.

Ron:
Hey Tuk, I think the problem is that primarily what is being raised in response to your comment that the MOQ is contradictory 
And thereby false, contradictory and thereby has no meaning in terms the tests of logical consistency is that you are failing to take into account That quite often contradictions in meaning are indicators that suggest that in terms of critical analysis one must then test their own conception of the meaning of the terms of the syllogism. I.e.: scientifically there is something you are missing.

Having said that, you are testing the logical consistency of the evolutionary model RMPs four levels And the dynamic. An idea. Therefore this model also self references. Which as you know creates contradictions in syllogistic logic.

Now, question is, out of necessity, how does one resolve self reference. Omission. Now you concentrate on the syllogism within its own context of assumptions within its explanatory power of evolutionary process.
Now you can really test for consistency in meaning.
Pitfalls to avoid:
Be sure to test consistency within each context because the meaning of words change accordingly terms like "good" 
And "moral".

Keep this in mind when testing the system 
As a whole syllogism. It will produce contradictions.

Let me know how it goes after you weed out
The logic traps. Things should start to straighten out a bit.









More information about the Moq_Discuss mailing list