From: Johannes Volmert (jvolmert@student.uni-kassel.de)
Date: Tue Jan 20 2004 - 17:09:50 GMT
Hi Bo,
nobody wants to prove you to be silly and I for my part - as you can see
from my previous posting - do not want to reject the SOLAQI-thesis as a
whole but when we consider your idea concerning (the implicated) formal
logic, the conclusions you have arrived at are flawed.
Bo said:
> JoVo, Paul, and all logicians.
>
>
> My claim is:
>
> 1) ZMM describes the emergence of SOM with the Greeks.
>
> 2) LILA and all Pirsig says conveys the impression that the
> intellectual level emerged with the Greeks!
>
> 3) Intellect=SOM.
>
JoVo:
I read your premises and your conclusion like this (to make the
underlying statements more visible) :
1) SOM has emerged with the Greeks (according to ZMM)
Note: The term inbetween the brackets is solely meant to enable
us/someone to backtrack your premise. It is irrelevant under a logical
point of view. Same below
2) Intellectual level has emerged with the Greeks (according to Lila
(/Pirsig))
3)Therefore intellect(ual level?) is identical with SOM
'3)' is your conclusion while '1)' and '2)' are your premises - i.o.w.
the assumptions that lead you to your conclusion. To show you that such
reasoning is incorrect, I made up a more appropriate example -
analogous to yours - than the ones Paul had given.
1) Democracy has emerged with the Greeks
2) Free Speach has emerged with the Greeks
3) Therefore Democracy is identical with Free Speach
You wouldn't think that such reasoning is correct, do you?
Well, of course not, I think! To your defense one could say at least,
that both subjects (logical subjects!) - SOM and the intellectual level
- are of *similar* quality, while this is not the case in my example. To
be more precise one could say that SOM is at least one element (or
subset) of the next higher *class* which is the intellectual level.
But to arrive at your conclusion, one has to find out whether there are
more/other systems of thinking that ALSO fit the criteria; and you do
not neglect that these can be identified as for example the Buddhism or
the Hinduism (those are not a religion only, but - according to Pirsig -
have also a metaphysical claim).
So, in case you would not find any other systems of thinking - i.e.
another element (subset) of that *class* - you were right to conclude
that SOM is *identical* with the Intellctual level.
Another way to prove such an identity would be to show that the temporal
coincidence (Emergence at times of the Greeks) of SOM and the
intellectual level is *functional* and not *accidental* AND also that
the existence of other systems of thinking is NOT *functional* to the
emergence of the intellectual level .
To prove the second is much more difficult, IMO: Pirsig obviously makes
use of buhddistic and hinduistic ideas in both books. In fact I do see
the MOQ as a synthesis of SOM, Hinduism and Buddhism. Pirsig doesn't say
so explicitly, but indictions are overwhelming (Phew...: IMO).
Once more: Write it down and demonstrate how SOLAQI works!! As long as
we don't know about what we are talking actually, neither you nor other
people have the possibility to argue it out properly.
With best Regards, JoVo
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jan 20 2004 - 17:12:07 GMT