From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Wed Jul 16 2003 - 17:32:40 BST
Scott,
> He destroyed the hope that there would be an eternally complete foundation
> of mathematics. However, I find this result to be liberating. It implies
> that mathematics will always be open. Mathematics continues to flourish
> without complete foundations. Incomplete foundations work quite well.
A bit off the subject, but since you often refer to mathematics as a kind
of touchstone in your thinking, have you a theory as to why an
intellectual level value like math has such great explanatory power of
inorganic level values? It seems physics and astronomy are 98 percent
math.
> I suppose I could be cute and say "that's the point" (that it is not
> understandable), but that isn't actually what I have in mind by it.
> However, I am still working out in my own mind how, or whether, it can be
> useful, beyond telling one that "intellect stops here". I suspect that it
> is also possible to say that "intellect (and maybe everything) starts
> here". (This may sound like I'm just being mysterious -- and I am -- but I
> it is mysterious to me as well. In truth, I don't know what I am talking
> about it, but hope to by and by).
My solution, at least for the present, is where intellect stops, values
begin. But, I look forward to your further exploration of a route around
this seeming dead end.
> But it is vital to seeing how the fourth and third levels can be in
> conflict. How one can think outside society's box.
For me, thinking that worries about what society thinks is dominated by
the social level. Thinking that cares less about what others think but
follows "objective" standards like mathematics, logic, computer programs,
scientific studies, etc. is dominated by intellectual values.
Platt (previously)
> > There's the big leap out of the box, or the "turn" as Matt might say. We
> > can argue about the intellectual level until the cows come home.
> > Eventually, each of us must decide "That's a good description," like
> > "That's a good dog." Or, "That's not a good description," like "That dog
> > won't hunt." In the end, Quality rules. Since it's a sense like taste,
> > touch, smell and sight, it cannot be intellectually described any more
> > than the beauty of a rose. But you know it from experience.
>
> I'm not so sure. What I think can be done is to identify one another's
> definitions (but that takes a lot of work and patience, and email
> discussion groups are probably not the easiest place for it). Then we can
> -- sometimes -- determine what one another's underlying beliefs are that
> result in those definitions. In the old SOM days, this would be asking
> whether one was an idealist, materialist, or dualist, and that is a
> bottoming out. We can't use those terms on this forum, but I think there
> are others. For example, is one basically "spiritual" (religious, or at
> least recognize mystical reality) or basically "secular". That's where, for
> example, Matt and I split, and so we recognize that, unless one of us can
> successfully proselytize the other (and this is not impossible, though
> unlikely -- we just don't "hear" the opposing arguments), then some
> subsequent arguments are recognized as straight 'tis/'taint, so we stop.
Each of us, individually, decides whether or not any basic approach--
mystical, spiritual, secular, materialist, idealist, dualist--meets his
own sense of Quality. Hopefully, each of us stays open to the possibility
that our sense of Quality can change, depending on one's life experiences.
As a life experience, this forum qualifies. :-)
Platt
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 Jul 16 2003 - 17:31:02 BST