Ciao Andrea,
Lunedi' 29 Gennaio Andrea Sosio wrote:
> Most of my current
> ideas stem from the discrete-language vs continuous-reality mismatch.
[...]
> Witt's "limit" concept is interesting, because it extends the
> discrete/continuous mathematical metaphor, and the extension seems to
work: as
> we (our culture, science, language) evolve, our "language" becomes a
> progressively "better" approximation of reality. At the same time, the
distance
> between our linguistic representation of reality and reality itself is
still, in
> another sense, infinite: any sentence in an improved language is still
subject
> to cause errors without end if applied literally to reality.
But there's another important point to consider: "language", logic,
science, metaphysics are part of the same reality they want to grasp....
so when they try to get closer to reality, they evolve, and the result
is a reality modification. My point about the language/reality mismatch
is that it's a false problem, as language is primarily a real entity
itself. According to the MOQ, the *best* metaphysical division is
static/dynamic. To say that reality is static, or that it is dynamic,
it's the same mistake of considering one only aspect.
Language has a double nature: it is statically, and interacts
dynamically. Just like every *real* entity, it interacts with reality
(dynamically, in the Q event) and then translates the experience
according to static patterns. The result are new real entities (ideas,
concepts and so on....). Language is not purely static: actually, it
modifies reality and it evolves at the same time. In this, I don't see
huge differences between language and biologic living beings. At every
level of experience, the process is always to evolve towards
excellence.
Any reality/language division is a door opened to the subject/object
division.
> The gap between our
> (linguistic/rational/...) representation of reality and reality itself
can only
> be bridged by "intuition", meditation, and other more or less mystical
tools
> that, in the first place, suppress our rationalizing, linguistic,
logical mind
> (together with the notion of "self", newtonian space/time, and other
accessories
> of rationality itself - see also Schopenhauer).
YES! There are so many examples of the limits of the logical / rational
method!
IMO the mystic bridge is mystic only in a reality/language (SOMish)
division. From a SOMish viewpoint, subject is separated from object,
language is separated from reality, mind is separated from matter, so
when the Quality event happens (the moment when subject and object are
the same) the limited language uses the "mystic" notation to express
the nature of the moment. But from a MOQish viewpoint, I'd say that we
don't need any "mystic" notation.
Quality, Excellence, Art. These are good terms. Art is the activity when
the subject is not separated by the object. The real artist uses a
technique as language, in order to express the reality as pure quality.
The performing artist is not separated by the masterpiece, or it's not
art. Many logical scientists would say that the artistic intuition is a
mystic event.... but the artist will say he/she is simply an artist.
What the MOQ offers is that even the scientific intuition/method process
is a form of art. In the sense that there's no separation between the
scientist and the science in the creative event (confront the Poincare
passage in ZAMM, and the end of SODV paper).
> The purpose of metaphysics (which is a rational, logical device) is
thus that of
> providing better approximations.
Or isn't it that of providing .... better ? Take the example of Indian
ghosts and gravitation in ZAMM. We could say that the Newton laws are a
better "approximation" to reality. Or... we could say that Newton
invented a new "real" concept: as real as the phenomenon of the falling
apple. From this viewpoint, I agree that it's a better approximation, of
course. But I do prefer to state that they are better intellectual
concepts. Where this "better" includes of course the notation "matching
the gravitation phenomenon in a simpler way", but also it does not
smell of any mind/reality division.
> What consequences stem from the discrete vs. continuous issue in
everyday life?
> Here is a situation that I think most of us experienced:
[....]
long snip
[....]
> While these dynamics are trivial and almost anyone could agree that
they're
> common, just a few people realize that their source is in the gap
between
> language and reality.
Well, your example seems to match the example of the song in Lila. The
first time you hear it (QE), you are enthusiastic, then enthusiasm
fades away. You will love forever the song, but as something pertaining
to your past; you probably will not feel the urge to listen to the song
like in the first days.
This process is well described by the dynamic/static division. IMO
better than any language/reality gap.
> Also, I think that any means that help us leave language behind to see
"what is
> Good", here and now, for Me, should be widely taught, because
unhappiness is
> never caused by the world around you, only by your opinion about the
world
> itself.
>
Well, IMO unhappiness can be caused by a bad fitting in the world around
you. For example, I would like to discuss of metaphysics all time, but
of course I can't. I must attend to my job and be also part of the
giant. And I've a family. And I must preserve my biological life. All
these "musts" can be a source of happiness, or a source of unhappiness.
The MOQ helps me a lot to understand that my intellectual self is only a
part of me, and it lies upon a social, a biological and an inorganic
self. If I want to reach the peace of mind, I must find a good balance
of my four levels, and a similar fitting of my four levels of experience
into the respective four levels of the world around me. A good way is
to understand that I'm part of this world. To surpass any division
between me and the other.
Let me know your thoughts
Be good.
Marco.
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 - 16:00:59 BST