From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Wed Sep 07 2005 - 17:07:34 BST
Hi Arlo, Gav, All
I think you guys have nailed at least one important aspect of the problem
of "truth." The physicist, Paul Davies, put it this way:
"But in the end a rational explanation for the world in the sense of a
close and complete system of logical truths is almost certainly
impossible. We are barred from ultimate knowledge, from ultimate
explanation, by the very rules of reasoning that prompt us to seek an
explanation in the first place. If we wish to progress beyond, we have to
embrace a different concept of "understanding" from that of rational
explanation."
Which is why I keep pushing art, and why Arlo is right on target in
explaining why Pirsig chose the art form of a novel for his metaphysics.
The other aspect of the problem of "truth" has to do with life and living.
Even Pirsig pays homage to "logical consistency." The paradox is simply
that to continue to exist we must divide indivisible existence. Without a
concept of absolute truth, such as "That's a bear, not a rabbit," we
wouldn't last long, nor would life have arisen in the first place.
It all goes to show why, metaphysically speaking, I'm a "mysterian,"
believing there's something there -- whether Consciousness, God, Essence,
or Quality -- but that we can never quite put our finger on, getting
glimpses of it only through art and beauty.
Thanks to Art and Gav for bringing this to the forefront.
Best,
Platt
> Platt, Gav, All...
>
> [About Platt's Paradox of Truth Assertation, Gav wrote]
> maybe the uncertainty principle explains what you guys are talking about:
>
> if so then the more specific a truth statement the more provisional it is,
> ie the more you pinpoint the truth the less you know about how that truth
> is evolving, moving, going (its momentum); conversely the more general a
> truth statement the less provisional but also the more vague.
>
> [Arlo]
> I think this hits the nail on the head. I've been thinking of the
> Incompleteness Theorem (from Wikipedia: For any formal theory in which
> basic arithmetical facts are provable, it is possible to construct an
> arithmetical statement which, if the theory is consistent, is true but not
> provable or refutable in the theory.)
>
> In my opinion, a symbolic language system is in many ways a "formal
> theory", and so will always be incomplete, unable to "prove" or "refute"
> certain statements even if we know them to be "true". The more we try to
> solve the problem through the creation of even more formal systems, the
> greater the problem becomes (as expressed in GEB: An Eternal Golden Braid).
>
> Since we think in language, this incompleteness seems paradoxical. But it
> is a "fault" only of systems in their ability to symbolically represent a
> whole. This is one of the "meanings" I see in Magritte's "The False
> Mirror". Namely that the "I", as it "sees" (symbolically constructs) the
> world, it can't see that at the core is an unrepresentable, always
> incomplete, aspect of the system.
>
> As the theorem states, there is no "work around" for this. No "symbolic
> system" that could be made stronger to capture this. No "logic" that could
> ever reach it. The only way it can be approached is by going outside of the
> symbolic system; meditation, art, koans, music, are all aides that help
> with the dissolution (momentarily) of the symbolic constructs that is the
> "I".
>
> To answer a continuing charge of Ham's towards Pirsig being a "novelist", I
> counter that this is exactly the point. By using art, by writing in an
> expressive medium that loosens the shackles of symbolic representation even
> slightly, Pirsig is pointing towards something that can never, ever be
> realized by building and building and building more elaborate symbolic,
> logic structures. He is, of course, trying to expand the formal system to
> pay heed, or take into account, the core which lies outside it... which it
> can only do analogously, metaphorically or tangentally, since that core
> will always, must always, lay outside of any formal system. And he does so
> by practicing what he preaches.
>
> But, as Platt says, that's an argument for another day.
>
> At the core of language will always be paradox, incompleteness and a void
> of unprovable yet unrefutable statements. The only way out is to leave the
> system.
>
>
> "Truth is relative" is an absolute truth. Mu.
>
> Arlo
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 07 2005 - 17:20:50 BST