On 2/29/12, Tuukka Virtaperko <mail@tuuk...> wrote:
>> Metaphysics creates what is true just as much as science does, in my
>> humble opinion. This is why Pirsig talks about gravity the way he
>> does. He calls these things ghosts, which is often misinterpreted.
>> Creations would be a better world. Not that I have anything against
>> such fabrications since that is what we do as humans, and we should
>> glorify in it.
> Hmm. We are probably talking about subtly different things here. I'm
> saying that metaphysics is intended to be, from a logical point of view,
> the ultimate metatheory of the human linguistic experience, which has no
> further metatheories. It is /possible/ to speak of physics as a
> metatheory of metaphysics, but I find that cumbersome and unelegant. The
> Kolmogorov complexity of a metaphysical theory is reduced, yet its
> features apparently remain the same, if physics is expected to belong to
> a certain slot within a metaphysical theory. I would like to be proven
> wrong, but as I haven't, I find my choice justified due to its
> simplicity. I intend RP to have the minimum amount of information that
> is necessary to convey its message. Elaborate meditations on physics as
> a metatheory of metaphysics are possible, but they are /undesirable/,
> because they complicate the theory while apparently adding nothing to
> it. This has nothing to do with /creation/ of truth. It is about
> categorization of truths.
Tuukka, it would seem that you are taking the same tact that
Wittgenstein took. He had to abandon that, and confine his
metaphysics to specific cases in the end. he also thought metaphysics
to be trivial since it was simply an excercise in semantics. Is this
where you are going with your metaphysics? Read Tractatus, perhaps
what you are writing has already been written.
It seems that you have proven yourself wrong by using mathematics to
expound on your metaphysics. Interesting that you would choose the
concept of metatheory. This would be like the set of all sets, or the
psychology of psychology. I will be interested to see how you apply
this to MoQ.
How is it that you intend RP to do anything? I do not quite
understand what you are saying here. Is this a Master and Puppet kind
If you do not want to complicate your theory, then stay away from
formulas, and follow your own advice.
>> Within any metaphysics any statement is given as reality. However, if
>> one approaches from a "relative" standpoint, then such things are seen
>> as silly. So, what is your choice, meaningful or silly?
> I don't understand the question.
>>> We all appreciate reality within the vernacular of the times.
>>> Therefore MoQ must be told in a manner in which people understand it.
>>> This is no different from how Jesus had to present God to his
>>> followers, and that was in the format of the accepted God of the Jews.
>>> What Jesus saw had nothing to do with that type of God. The same can
>>> be said for Buddhism which accepted the Hindu Gods. Don't get
>>> distracted by the format in which MoQ is presented, for it is
>>> presenting something that can be said in many different formats, and
>>> has been through the ages. Look beyond the concepts and words.
> Yup. I wouldn't do this unless there are academics in high positions who
> only understand an obscure but precise formal language. But you see, if
> I only managed to change the minds of these people, they would use their
> power to do a huge amount of the rest of the work for us. Also,
> admittedly, I understand this obscure and precise language, and even
> appreciate it.
>> Well, a psychologist would tell you that metaphysics is subordinate to
>> psychology and is purely dependent on some conditional response which
>> is determined by our history. I hope you see this as somewhat naive.
>> Subordination is not necessary for MoQ to be presented. In fact such
>> a statement is somewhat trivial.
> I guess you're right.
>> Well, I do not know what you are doing right now. In my opinion, it
>> is important to review all the great philosophies (religions included)
>> through the ages and see how they relate to MoQ. We do not want to
>> reinvent the wheel. All these philosophies were created by the human
>> mind and it therefore stands to reason that they have similarities.
>> The only differences are in the manner in which they are presented.
>> We can dispute these presentations all we want, but that is futile and
>> will not lead anywhere. We would be arguing over symbols rather than
>> what they represent.
> I agree that inclusion of religions is important. I'm doing as much as I
> can. Recently I apparently combined RP with Jüri Eintalu's K-KR
> principle, that is relevant to the problem of induction. It was pretty
> neat, and not some dead philosophy, but something academics are working
> on right now.
> About religions, then. I would say the Coyote of the Plains Indians,
> Loki of the Vikings and Bythos of the Gnostics are metaphorical
> references to Dynamic Quality. But the Gnostic sect did not survive the
> first millennium of Christianity. It was a slightly weird idea to have a
> Gnostic sect, though, because how can you instituonalize Dynamic
> Quality? But what is appalling is that the Gnostic gospels were removed
> from the Bible, resulting in a Christianity that has no references to
> Dynamic Quality.
>> Quality is not defined by levels. The levels are a mode of
>> presentation of a deeper realization. You can play the word games all
>> you want, but they will not lead you anywhere, in my opinion. You
>> need to take a stand on what Quality means to you. If it is "not
>> this, not that", then what does that mean to you? If you say that
>> such meaning cannot be defined, then you have flunked metaphysics 101.
> I don't think people are interested in reading verbal statements about
> what Quality means to me. I'm just some dude who likes formulae and has
> a small bit of UG-fame. Why would so many people be interested of that?
> Doing this work is what Quality means to me.
>> I suppose what it means to me is to NOT have some notion of what
>> Quality means to you, and therefore not be able to construct a
>> metaphysics around it. I apologize if I misconstrued what you
>> presented over the time we have been corresponding. The levels are
>> not essential for understanding Quality. Quality was presented in
>> ZAMM without levels.
> The levels are indeed not necessary. It's just added detail. But on a
> sidenote, only the levels add enough detail to the MOQ that I find
> myself able to present it in a form an academic could conceivably find
>> Well, Tuukka, here you are using formulae which is part of science.
>> Do you not think that using such primitive methods will result in a
>> primitive metaphysics? :-) Personally, I like the use of formulas as
>> yet another manner of description. As I have said, there are
>> thousands of ways of describing Quality. Some are better than others,
>> in terms of reaching an agreement. So I encourage you to continue.
> Not all formulae are scientific. Anyway, this is a taxonomy problem
> which I do not find extremely important. But it's okay to deem RP
> science. I don't have a problem with that - it could even be a good idea.
>> Tuukka, there is nothing to know, only that to create. I want to
>> create more, and I think you do too. Knowledge is vague if it cannot
>> be understood by another (I am talking about the intellectual variety
>> of knowledge). If you have knowledge which you understand, then it is
>> not intellectually vague. There is no intellectual knowledge about
>> being able to ride a bike, you can think about other things while you
>> do it. This is the other form of knowledge. We have intelectual
>> memory, but there is also muscle memory, cellular memory, immune
>> memory, and so forth.
> That's romantic quality in RP, and hopefully, in MOQ too.
>> Quality provides a simple paradigm for the differences between all
>> things. This is because the ONLY differences are in terms of their
>> qualities. So Quality is the Source of these differences.
> That's not a new or a MOQ-specific idea.
>> I am not sure you have any idea what Pirsig experienced, for you would
>> have to go through that experience. If you had, then you would not be
>> so confused, as you seem to be. Concepts are played with to represent
>> what he experienced. If you are not interested in that experience,
>> then perhaps you have a different MoQ. That is of course fine with
>> me, but call it something different. My road towards Quality was very
>> similar to Pirsig's. At least I had his book to refer to which he did
>> not. So for that I thank him for helping me make sense of it and not
>> completely loosing touch with the reality I had educated into me. It
>> can be lonely living in a reality which nobody understands, but is
>> very very real. Platt had the same problem, at least so he told me.
> I am not confused. I have already gone through the experience of a
> mental disorder with psychotic characteristics, if that's what you mean.
> Have you?
> I used to be really lonely! But no longer...
>> Well, that sounds cool to me, even if I do not understand it. Good
>> luck with your endeavors, I am sure I will learn something from them.
>> Just remember to write it up so that the regular person can understand
>> it. Otherwise you will be living in a reality that nobody can relate
>> to :-).
> Yeah, fist I just gotta figure out what I want to say in the first
> place. The MOQ.FI website is not intended to be easily approachable. I
> agree that it is not written as clearly as it should be. I'm not yet at
> that stage.
> But thank you. =)
> 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 >
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.