Hi Chris:
I asked:
> > Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but it seems you're saying
> > logical analysis will always exhibit incompleteness and
> > uncertainty due to the way our nervous systems work.
You replied:
> Sort of, more so a particular METHOD we use for analysis. A dichotomy is
> representative of a dimension (axis is -1 to +1 and takes on the form of a
> square wave, a digital, YES/NO emphasis, the assertion of a 'truth'). Adding
> dimensions (usually orthogonal) moves us from single to multi-dimensional
> analysis. This process is found in Fourier Transforms where we take aspects
> (interpreted in the form of waves) and add them together to get closer and
> closer to the square wave.. but in principle we can never get the 'perfect'
> match, just more of a good approximation.
> Thus we introduce degrees of truth. Popper's thinking comes out of the world
> of approximations in that induction contains an element of faith that he
> disliked in Science.
>
> Since our senses have limits so we can reach a point where we can no longer
> resolve differences, and the extention of our senses through instruments
> moves us from trust in our senses to trust in their extentions. This act
> always has a degree of distrust in it, uncertainty, and the act forms a
> dichotomy of US/NOT-US that when analysed ensures a range of interpretations
> where some will say 'this is all perfect, there is no error' and others will
> emphasise 'illusions' etc IOW asking the question, or more so the format of
> the question, will include a RANGE of possible interpretations and so forces
> recognition of doubt.
>
> What makes people sure about the instruments comes down to faith, where
> there is no range, there is an absolute, fundamental sense of 'right' -- but
> this can be delusion!
I take it that your answer is "Yes." Ultimately, regardless of what
method of analysis we use or what instruments we employ to
determine "the truth," incompleteness and uncertainty are our lot
in life. Your explanation appears to support my long-held
contention that philosophy is basically a search for assumptions
(often hidden) which uphold a point of view. Ayn Rand's oft-
repeated dictum, "Check your premises," seems apropos here
except she omitted the key premise that premises, including her
own, are faith-based.
> > Result: we must possess some form of understanding other than
> > rational explanation. Perhaps, as Pirsig suggests, we should treat
> > truths like paintings in an art gallery--find those you value and
> > ignore the rest.
> There is a state that reflects 'total' resonance. It is a general,
> unconscious state where the conscious mind has a problem trying to
> particularise, you feel as if you are being moved by unconscious forces.
> This seems to be sourced in the realm of the 'many' in that that world is
> strongly harmonics oriented and a harmonic, or more so a set of, can elicit
> a resonance that is overpowering. If consciousness can also identify with it
> then the whole process is allencompassing. This suggests that we can state
> ONE=MANY in that the ONE is explicit and the MANY implicit but there is also
> a transformation process involved.
>
> I think this sort of experience is sourced in pre-linguistic communication
> methods, rich qualitatively but lacking quantitative precision. you see this
> in the brain in that those parts more associated with the 'ONE' favour
> precision of a quantitative type whereas parts associated with the 'MANY'
> favour pattern matching and a more qualitative precision; there is a play on
> harmonics.
Ah, "harmonics" -- the aesthetic! Interesting that you should
conclude with a discussion of a "state that reflects 'total'
resonance" because it appears Pirsig appeals to the same state
in determining the "truth" or "value" of metaphysics. You'll recall in
his letter to Bodvar Skutvik that Pirsig answered the question,
"How do you justify the statement that Quality equals reality?" by
saying, "by the harmony it produces." Here he's appealing to a
step beyond the intellectual A/-A analysis to a higher plane of
"beauty" that is recognized and sought by the best of creative DQ-
seekers, whether mathematicians or muscians and where, as
you say, ONE=MANY.
I don't pretend to understand all your "intense" writing that reflects
the depth of your study and knowledge. (As they say, I'm out of my
depth.) But it "harmonizes" with me, and I deeply appreciate you're
taking the time and effort to contribute to this site. You add a great
deal to the discussion.
Platt
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