Good Ood, I've given birth to a Wooly Mammoth! Ooo-that smarts!
Just kidding, PzEph. I couldn't be happier.
Here are a few Riffs I hope will harmonize:
The subject themes first memed me via Hofstadter's "Godel, Escher, Bach:",
and were mutated through exposure to Pirsig, among others. Later, it was Scott
Peck (not one of my favs, but...) whose "map of reality" metaphor drove
home the point for me. Roughly: each of us has, at best, a MAP of Reality
which might in theory possibly be consistent (if you're really, really
evolved), but not likely; but owing to inherent human limits, can never be
complete.
Well, obviously, but it got me going: Perhaps the closest we can ever come
to our own personal map being ACTUAL SIZE (Ha!) is through direct
perception, SANS
ANY CONCEPTUAL/PHILOSOPHICAL CONSTRUCT. In other words, ZEN/MU/ONENESS is
as close to the ideal as we can get. BE QUALITY, eh? But this is still,
at best, a PERCEPTUAL MAP of Reality.
So, a Conceptual Construct is a MetaMap; a Philosophical Construct is a
MetaMetaMap; a Pilosophological Construct is a MetaMetaMeta...Oh, fer
Pete's sake!...
In this sense, then, the MOQ must be at best a MetaMetaMap, but this need
not be regarded as a disparagement of its DQ, as it is the Meme Complex
whereby we in this very forum reflect one another like the jewels in
"Indra's Net". The classic blunder to avoid is of course the Classical
Dichotomist's penchant for confusing theory with reality. Most of the best
of philosophers have generally
been mindful of this, of course. It has been history's middlemen--
philosophologists, fusty professors and authoritarians--that have loved so much
the pretense of having the Great Bull of Heaven by the...uh...horns.
Especially
in the presence of their "inferiors" and subordinates. Oh, well...
(If this is all too elementary for this forum, please do not hesitate to
say so.
Redundancy is not an ideal to which I aspire.)
I'll wrap up by MetaMapping this MetaMeme with a sound byte I have often
used to illustrate Incompleteness/Inconsistency and such, certainly a
GODELian derivation, for which I make no claim of authorship:
"Any formal system of logic MAY be either complete OR consistent, but NOT
BOTH."
And, in fact, it's not likely to be either one!
BTW, I am counting on ANY or ALL of you to inform me IF and WHOFROM I
pillaged the above nugget! I'd love to know to whom I owe infinite credit!
"Be the ball, Danny. Be the ball." ("CADDYSHACK")
Nuff sed. Let's go grind some bird.
R. Raff (dkm)
PS ROG Many striking parallels in your INTERVALUATION ideas--if you are
not already familliar with Hofstadter's "Creative Concepts & Fluid
Analogies: Computer Models of the Fundamental Mechanisms of Thought" I
suspect you would find it fascinating!
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:51 BST