>So, Riff,
>You say:
>> 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.
>- what makes you think evolution would favour consistency? Maybe stupidity
>and inconsistency would really help if, say, you wanted to evolve into a
>successful politician.
PzEph,
"You MOQ me, sir,... I will not be MOQed!!!"
or...
"Bon ami--well met! Ungard!"
So, you're saying that those erstwhile evolvees who (such as I) overfed at
the ritual feast might just as well be trampled...but what of those who
overfed at the trough? Hmm...well, Quality works in mysterious ways.
Quite clearly, the answer to your question is "That oak tree in the garden",
but then again, The Great Spirit of Chainsawness, like The Children Of
Machiavelli, mutates and thus evolves when Meme-ed (or MetaMeme-ed) from
one mind (or one generation) to the next. Hmm...
Okay, thmarty pantth, ya' got me!
"Yond Cassius hath a lean and hungry look."
But, soft, now. Methinks I hear the faint ticking of a Metaphysical
Absurdity in thy paradigm: "Instrument VERSUS User"...
Make a TOOL of ME, will you!?
(easily done, I must admit)
As to your next post:
I:
>> "Any formal system of logic MAY be either complete OR consistent, but NOT
>> BOTH."
Thou:
>It doesn't sound like a logician's comment,...
I had long assumed this was Hofstadter's translation of Godel's (sorry, I've
misplaced my "umlaut". Ouch.) Second Theorem or infamous "Incompleteness
Theorem". As I understand it, this was designed/intended to punch holes in
Russel & Whitehead's "Principia Mathematica". Hofstadter described Godel as
a Metalogician or "Metamathematician", and provided a brief but brilliantly
accessible view of the spirit of Godel's work.
>...more like someone who thought formal logic a blind alley or waste of time.
I couldn't say for sure, but I don't think so...more likely, he was simply
annoyed at the apparent pretense on the part of so many scholars of his time
that their theories were synonymous with reality itself.
>She (Iris Murdoch) says...that Hegel pursued consistency at the expense of
>the real world...But not because the world is inconsistent...
Exactly. I, too, have read very little Hegel, as I have minimal tolerance for
the language of his time. Likewise, I have read little Classical Philosophy,
as I have minimal tolerance for excessive Dichotomism (I just keep shamelessly
inventing words as I go!), nonetheless, as ROG pointed out, Subject/Object
terminology is still our defacto tool for intellectualizing about existence
and existants. In my "Ayn Rand days", arrogant, though I was, I found her
statement "Contradictions do not exist. If you think you perceive a
contradiction, examine you premises--you will find that one of them is
wrong."
to be quite useful, and I still do. In this light, I have come to use the
phrase "APPARENT Paradox" when referring to "the bits that don't fit", because,
if I interpret Hofstadter correctly/intuitively, "paradox" is the dead giveaway
that a formal system has been pushed to its functional limit. This would seem
to suggest that "jumping out of the system", that is, transcending or
redefining
it (correctly, we presume), will successfully resolve the "paradox". This
seems to hold true for all apparent paradoxes, except those closely related
to "The One", i.e., "defining" singular reality. Oddly, this is somewhat
resolved by observing the present limitations of human inquiry, in an
open-ended MOQlike fashion, particularly the necessity of defining or saying
what something IS, at least in part, by saying what it IS NOT. Obviously,
this is absurd when referring to reality as a whole.
Well, this could go on forever, and at the moment I'm not the least bit
cynical about turkey sandwiches.
For more fun with related ideas, try on Raymond M. Smullyan's "Is God A
Taoist?", reprinted in "The Mind's I", arranged by Hofstadter & Dennett.
I'll check out your paper on Murdoch. Thanks!
See you at the trough!
Riff N. Raff
(dkm)
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