On Mar 5, 2012, at 5:49 PM, Tuukka Virtaperko <mail@tuuk...> wrote:
> From a /logical/ point of view, there is no romantic quality. That is
> because logical symbols cannot be /logically/ proven to correspond to
> any kind of sensory experiences. Furthermore, any arbitrary argeements,
> according to which they do, cannot be expressed by means of formal logic.
>> How about you look at it this way. It is logic that creates the
>> notion of a romantic quality. Therefore it is created and must exist.
>> This is what logic is for, to be creative. Of course romantic
>> quality does not exist as we create it with logic, but that is not the
>> point of logic, in my opinion.
> Well... I don't understand what that means for /formal/ logic to create that. I mean, defining romantic quality as a set whose members may not be expressed, but which is assumed nonempty, is all that we can do in the field of formal logic. Clearly, that's not all there is to romantic quality.
No, certainly not. Your desire to create such a formulation is Romantic Quality as well. I was referring to what you are creating in an objective analogy. That is the formulaic label for romantic quality. It is something new, therefore in the spirit of MoQ, which is also new.
>> Well, I suppose you can say that. In my intepretation of reality, the
>> units of measure are the qualities of everything. Since that is all
>> we can apprehend, it makes sense that the Mother of all these
>> "qualities" is Quality.
> Sure... but I am talking about units that can be used to measure empirically observable things. This is, to my knowledge, the usual use of the word "unit".
In a scientific sense those are units, but fundamentally they are no different from the "units" we use to describe Beauty. The are man made symbols that we use for descriptive purposes, in my view from Quality.
>> Here's an idea I came up with when I was thinking about your math.
>> Let us say that romantic quality is a good method for expanding a
>> created understanding of MoQ, and not belabor that point until we see
>> what it results in. It would seem to me that included in the
>> variables, there must be some kind of "stabilizing principle". That
>> is, RQ must have a propensity towards "homeostasis" or balancing. As
>> a biochemist, I can point to all sorts of feedback signals that the
>> body creates so as to remain somewhat consistent. For example, when
>> an enzyme converts something into something else, that "something
>> else" then goes back to the enzyme to tell it to stop making more. If
>> it did not, the body would pretty much destroy itself with all the
>> enzyme activity. This is an oversimplification but gives you an idea.
> I'm not sure what you mean. Those enzymes and feedback signals are objective quality. If I follow you right, objective quality and subjective quality are the very "stabilizing principles" you are asking for. In this case they are already present.
All I was trying to humbly suggest, was that any formulaic presentation of Quality should bring in the concept of balance.
>> If we have, say, four parameters, and each parameter affects the other
>> parameters, then it is easy to see how a small perturbation with send
>> the whole system completely out of control. So, there must be a
>> method for keeping things somewhat stable, because that is how they
> Yes. But bear in mind that although the approach of RP is not purely formal, it resembles formal logic so much that these chaotic perturbations are not temporal, as are the fluctuations of the stock market. Instead, they are semantic or logical. Contemporary academic philosophy is severely affected by such perturbances, as they try to define multiple nonrelativizably used predicates in terms of each other. From a logical point of view, this can result in total chaos, and it seems to do something like that in practice, too. Philosophers don't know what their statements mean.
Well, there is chaos and then there is Chaos in my opinion. Certainly some intrusion of chaos is good, but from my view there should be some coalescence. This is analogized by the "levels" as presented by Pirsig. It is also demonstrated by the human body which is highly complex, yet persistent.
> The semantic stabilization of this system is, that questions like "where does emergence begin", "where does it end" and "why does it go that way" can be answered somehow.
I see "answered" as a loaded term. We make the questions, and we create the answers. It is all to provide complex meaning, which is grand in my opinion.
> The weak points of RP are that normative quality seems a bit out of place perhaps. I'm not currently sure whether it is supposed to be a part of the emergence cycle or something separate. But it doesn't seem wrong, either.
I am not sure what you mean by "normative". If you mean normalization, then that is what I am talking about. A normalizing principle is required to bring order out of Chaos.
> But if someone said: "Why can't subjective quality emerge from objective quality, and normative quality emerges from subjective quality?" or "Why can subjective and normative quality simultaneously emerge from objective quality?", I wouldn't know what to answer. I don't know how to formulate the theory in a way that would be more elegant and less arbitrary, yet have the same functions.
If we use a cause-effect paradigm, I would say that objective quality comes from subjective Quality. Such subjective quality would be a presentation of DQ, and is not definable since it is from that which definitions arise.
> Perhaps the top pattern should be seen as some sort of a pattern that terminates the emergence process. I don't think the theory would lose essential features even if the emergence were not circular. It would be a shame, though. I like the graph I made. But I don't honestly know how...
Well if we look at evolutionary theory, species do tend to terminate if the become over specialized (static). However there is always a dynamic component which splits off from the tree farther down the branch. In this way it is ever-creating.
So I do not have a problem with a termination process. If it were circular, Quality would not have direction, I do not think.
> ...I really need to think about these things!...
> ...I guess the emergent product of the intellectual level cannot carry... uhh...
> ...but maybe normative quality also corresponds to kinds of romantic quality.
If normative quality is like "classical" quality, then everything contains both I would think. This provides for a dynamic component in Quality.
> That would be maybe a wise way of going about it. It could be even necessary. Otherwise RP would apparently preclude intuitive understanding of logical phenomena.
I don't think we need to stick to the cause-effect paradigm. Quality is self sufficient, as I see it.
> It could actually simplify the theory if the strange "loops" or "bands" extending from the normative patterns in the graph were grey and denoted as forms of romantic quality.
> An interesting thought.
> I would also like to axiomatize the differences between subjective quality and objective quality in a more detailed and formal fashion.
Sounds good too
> Sensory experiences are the end product of the subjective. Mental realms are the end product of the objective. Does this entail, the subjective is the end product of the normative? And that the normative is the end product of the objective?
No, I do not think so. We create sensory experiences with our bodies. But there is something which triggers those sensory experiences. In a way this whole process can be seen as circular, for our experience triggers the objective which in turn feeds back to influence the subjective. It could be a "chicken-egg" kind of thing.
> I guess any other option doesn't make sense. But if someone can argue that another option does make sense, I'd love to hear it.