Hi Glen, Squad,
>While you can use the intellectual level to construct a map of reality,
the map
>is never the reality. The MoQ doesn't contain reality, it's a useful
analogy or
>metaphor. ...
I fully understand what you are getting at, but a map has to be a map of
something tangible and a metaphor has to allude to something else. The
point here is that the "reality" we ar talking about can be experienced
ONLY through maps and metaphors. Perhaps mystics can leave the map
behind and go out for a walk in reality, but perhaps all they really do
is dream about it.
Some weeks ago Sojourner wrote to me the following:-
>There is an absolute reality. It's "absolutely" and 100% and exactly
>what you believe it to be. Not your "perception" of "it", but what
>you BELIEVE IT TO BE.
(Sojourner, I hope you don't mind me quoting that from our private mail)
I have to agree with him that we won't get anywhere if we start to talk
about "Real" reality vs. metaphors of reality. However, where I disagree
is his use of "absolute". Once reality depends on personal belief, then
there can be no one absolute reality common to all mankind.
[snip] GLEN continues ...
>There is no description for reality that is reality. Isn't this what
>Pirsig so deftly defends against Plato?
[snip]
>Some would fault me for telling them that their
>description of reality isn't reality but I don't think Robert Pirsig is
one of
>them.
>
Plato's "Truth" is a concept of a common absolute reality - REAL
reality.
By taking Pirsig's approach and rejefcting this concept, all we are left
with is what Glen calls maps and metaphors.
>I strongly disagree with your recursion analogy. Recursion is used
when a
>function calls itself. It's a very useful concept in computer
programming. Is
>recursion logical invalid in my program because it's a function calling
itself
>in pursuit of an answer? Does it produce an incorrect answer? That a
pattern
>of reality on the intellectual levels uses tools also constructed from
the
>intellecual level to desribe the environment or reality seems like a
good
>classically grounded procedure to me.
I didn't say that recursion is invalid. All I said was that Intellect is
a set of symbols (patterns of values) so when Intellect analyses itself,
recursion is involved.
>Personally i've wondered whether your not looking for a solution of
what is
>commonly known as the "Other Minds Problem". "How can I know (in the
strong
>sense of the term know) that anything outside my mind exits?" ...
I just don't think it is a useful question. What difference does it
make?
Regards, Jonathan
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:34 BST