PzEph,
I must be brief. I have two days to finish prep for a 10 min presentation
to my Ethics class on the MOQ and how it handles
"moral" dillemmas. Because of this, your observation regarding
politicians ("R/R Proof") was very important to me as I must be
prepared for just such questions. My conclusion is similar:
Evolution is utterly aloof to our evaluations; Quality is, as
ROG puts it, a "Positive Sum" proposition (as I have only had
time to glance at his work, I may well be missing his point
entirely); and with these in mind, our "ethical" evaluations
are of strictly local relevance in space and time, as we can
never hope to know the DQ of the ultimate "end result" if there
is such a thing...
And I intend to show all this in a 10 min presentation!?
My KINGDOM for a NUTSHELL!!!
You seem cosiderably less "dim" on Godel than I am. Admittedly,
my entire "grasp" of his Incompleteness Theorem is based on
Hofstadter's work, to which, due to inexperience, I fear I have
done great injustice in my attempt to illustrate.
Your report:
>On the second theorum (a corrollary), Flew gives this precis:
>"... the consistency of a formal system of arithmetic cannot be >proved by
>a means formalizable within that system"
This is exactly what Hofstadter illustrates (I seem to recall), and he
explores the many questions that arise with a sparkling energy and
curiosity ("IMO") which I have found nowhere else. His many other
interrelated explorations into science, language, music, art, ZEN,
computers, artificial intelligence, to name a few, I find likewise
intriguing and inspiring. Also, I must point
out that, while he dabbles very little in metaphysics as such,
there seems an implicit thread woven throughout his work which is
accommodated quite effortlessly by Pirsig's MOQ.
For nearly 20 years I had an extreme aversion to the idea of going
to college. It was Hofstadter's work (primarily), plus its lack of any
apparent conflict with my perceptions of Quality (or with the MOQ), which
finally and uexpectedly pushed me over the
threshold and into the academic world. Who would have thought!!!
DQ: Expect the unexpected!
Now back to Godel...
Your remarks:
>Now this observation (based on detailed formal logic, and having
>>application to formal logic) is symultaneously the most >revolutionary
>thing you can say, or utterly unsurprising, >depending on how you look at
>it.
Quite so. In fact, I like to think of it as BOTH, even without
changing channels (POV)! But then, I am the babbling bipedal
embodiment of ambiguity.
...and Murdoch:
>Now all this is quite a different kettle of fish from the worries >you and
>I have about whether the attempt to rationalise >everything can over-reach
>itself.....
>
>Or is it?
Perhaps. I read your paper on Murdoch, and without any prior knowledge of
her work, I think I generally would agree with
you/her, but I definitely need to take a closer look. I am wholly
unprepared to argue any POV here--my position (whatever it is) is based
almost entirely on "preintellectual" perceptions--but I tend
to SUSPECT that the two kettles above are somehow very deeply
intertwined.
Now back to my(?) statement:
"Any formal system of logic MAY be either complete OR consistent
but NOT BOTH."
I now must admit that I am completely unprepared to support this,
as well. As I said, I had thought that I was simply paraphrasing
from Hofstadter's "GEB" ("Godel, Escher, Bach:...", Basic Books,
1979.), but now I can find no such reference. If I had, I could,
at worst, claim that supporting the statement was not my job, and
simply point to Hofstadter (pretty BAD, I'll grant you, but such is the
state of my skills at present.). Now I have to ask if I have been
misrepresenting both Godel AND Hofstadter.
When I offered the above "quote" to my Ethics class, albeit in a
somewhat different context, the instructor acted as if he had been
waiting years for a student to make such an observation. He then
proceeded to attribute the statement to Heisenberg! Oh, well, at
least I'm not ALONE in my confusion about this.
At any rate, your questions and observations on this matter have
helped me to see that I need to be prepared to support this idea;
or shelve it until such time as I can support it; or discard it altogether.
I have been quzzing people on campus in hopes of finding either
confirmation or correction, but no one wants to touch the issue, except to
say that it "sounds quite profound".
This exchange has been very helpful. Thank you!
Hey! You guys are SERIOUS...and EDUCATED...and stuff!
I'M just a middle-aged PLEBE who's stumbled in way over his head!!
Oh,well, all the more reason to stay in school, eh?
Thanks & best wishes,
Riff
(dkm)
P.S. (That's what I call "brief". It also took me hours. You can
see how this would be a problem in academic life!)
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