[MD] I Am a Strange Loop

[Platt Holden]

Arlo:

Your wrote to SA:

> Of course the world is not about "defining". All I am saying is that 
> (1) when we do define, or intellectualize, we do so with symbols, (2) when
> our symbol system becomes sufficiently complex to allow "intellection about
> intellection", or self-reference; paradox, recursion and "strange loops"
> are an unavoidable aspect of that attempt. "Mu" is a recognition of any
> "essential incompleteness" any formalization of intellect will have (and is
> another cross-over point between Pirsig and Hofstadter). Koans, by their
> very nature, attempt to point at this "essential incompleteness", as (I
> would argue) does "art".

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you are saying pretty much the same 
as the following from Paul Davies, a physicist:

"Might it not be the case that the reason for existence has no explanation 
in the usual sense? This does not mean the universe is absurd or 
meaningless, only that an understanding of its existence and properties 
lie outside the usual categories of rational human thought. We have seen 
how application of the human reasoning in its most refined and formalized 
sense--to mathematics--is nevertheless full of paradox and uncertainty. 
Godel's theorem warns us that the axiomatic method of making logical 
deductions from given assumptions cannot in general provide a system which 
is both provable and consistent. There will always be truth that lies 
beyond, that cannot reached from a finite collection of axioms. In the end 
a rational explanation of the  world in the sense of closed 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."

If we accept what you, Davies and others say is the end game of intellect,
a cul de sac so to speak from which it cannot escape, then could we gain
relief by accepting Bo's idea that the MOQ offers 1) a way to stand above 
the intellectual level, and, as Ian intimates, 2) a way to be at ease with 
the  irrational without losing meaning? In other words, I wonder if we can 
claim that the MOQ is a bridge over intellect's ultimate paradoxes, 
recursions and strange loops. After all, a world of value experience is 
far from being a closed system and contains the unpredictable, indefinable 
dynamism of chaos theory and quantum uncertainty. 

What do you think? Can we push the MOQ that far? Or is it too bound to 
intellect to provide us an escape from the "system." 

Thanks.
Platt