Hi Glenn,
> SAM
> >Could you explain why you see these as two separate problems?
Glenn:
> Maybe the best way to describe how these are separate problems is through
> an analogy. Suppose a metaphysics is like a road map of your town.
> If Godel's Incompleteness Thm applies to this road map, it means that, try
as
> you might, the map will always have missing lines on it where roads
belong.
> This is a separate problem from capturing the essence of roads in a town
from
> black squiggles on a piece of paper.
I think we're in agreement that Godel does not apply directly to a
metaphysics. (I don't think there is a problem with 'missing lines'.) I do,
however, still think that it is impossible to gain a perfect metaphysics. To
use a different analogy, I see it as a bit like measuring a sphere using a
ruler (as opposed to a tape measure) - you can do it, but it is always
subject to imperfections, because our equipment, ultimately, isn't up to it.
(That isn't to say that our equipment can't provide us with any useful
information at all, just that we need to be suitably modest. Consider what
it means to say that something can be measured 'exactly'.). Hence my seeing
the two aspects as related.
I'm intrigued by your 'compositional' comments. You say: "Yeah, it bothered
me that the compositional theme didn't follow through. Intellectuals weren't
composed of societies." I think that Intellectuals ARE composed of
societies. Indeed, that's one of the most stimulating things about the
myth/social level thread running in parallel at the moment (which when I get
a chance I'll come back to). To my mind the work of the intellect can only
be done using the raw material of the social level. It is re-arranging the
patterns according to a higher law, but I think the law of composition still
holds. I'd be very happy to pursue this further.
I share you worries about the gravity problem.
Sam
>
> BO:
> >..what do you think about the logic (flaw or not)
> >that has bothered me all the time, namely that of the MOQ claiming to be
an
> >intellectual pattern and thus a creation of one of its own lesser parts.
This
> >grated my logical nerve until I found a respite in the so-called SOL
> >interpretation: That the MoQ is something beyond intellect, which in this
> >context becomes SOM. This alleviates the logic bend but creates a loop,
the
> >MOQ is itself! There is no terrain that a metaphysics is a map of; Its
REALITY
> >itself, full stop. This last is "allowed" (in my logic) but not really
> >satisfactory for the down-to-earth- people who want it to be a better
map.
>
> The SOL interpretation concludes that Pirsig invented reality. Unless you
> like being a figment of someone else's solipsism, this isn't for you.
>
> Without going into details over this, let me just say that
> this chicken-and-egg-like dilemma forces you to think about
> the distinction between a discovery and a creation, between the
> creation of a label for a pre-existing "thing" and the creation of
> the "thing" itself. I don't have any neat answers for you, but I think
> the MOQ complicates the issue by insisting that everything is created
> (by the "measure of man"). We have Newton creating gravity in 1680, for
> example. This is really troublesome. Time then becomes a very difficult
> concept to reconcile with experience, and has all the "round and round"
> earmarks of dualism.
>
> BO:
> >I became so interested after this remarkable post that I checked on your
> >earliest entries Glenn, and found that you joined in September 99.
>
> Thanks for the buttery sounding words, but honestly - I re-read my post -
> it's not that remarkable. I'll always remember how nervous I was sending
> that first post and how nice it was that someone [you] responded and
welcomed
> me to the MF, even though you went on to disagree with my comments.
>
> BO:
> >by declaring the intellectual level a problem (within the MOQ) in the
sense
> >that it broke the rule of "composition" (organisms composed of matter,
societies
> >composed of organisms ...etc.) this I guess I protested back then, but
you may
> >have had a new insight ...or?
>
> Or what?
> Yeah, it bothered me that the compositional theme didn't follow through.
> Intellectuals weren't composed of societies. I remember one other person's
> first ever post also complaining of this. Unfortunately it was also her
last
> post.
>
> But I dropped the subject when DMB invented the now time-honoured MOQ snub
> that my arguments against the intellectual level were due to my inability
to
> "see" the intellectual level. Ouch! Is this what you're hinting at when
you
> say "...or?"? If so, ouch again, three years later! When I tried to
explain
> the compositional theme further to David in a couple of private posts, he
> still didn't grasp the concept, and misconstrued this to mean that I
thought
> size mattered, or something.
> Glenn
> --
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________
> Your favorite stores, helpful shopping tools and great gift ideas.
Experience the convenience of buying online with Shop@Netscape!
http://shopnow.netscape.com/
>
> Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Mail account today at
http://webmail.netscape.com/
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
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 - 16:02:04 BST