[MD] I Am a Strange Loop

[Ham Priday]

Platt and Arlo --


[Arlo, 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".

[Platt, to Arlo]:
> 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 Arlo calls the "essential incompleteness" of intellect I submit is due
to the "existential incompleteness" of being-aware which never provides the
whole picture.  I think Davies has stated it well by positing the problem as
an axiom of existence: "We are barred from ultimate knowledge, from ultimate
explanation."
That the meaning of life and ultimate nature of our reality is unfathomable
has a purpose in itself.  It leaves us free to interpret the values of our
existence as autonomous beings, rather than treading a prescribed course to
a known destination.  That, I think, is the difference between individual
freedom and causal determinism.  And the paradox and uncertainty to which
Davies alludes demonstrates that we cannot "reason" our way to ultimate
truth.  What he doesn't say is that if man had access to absolute wisdom, he
would not be free.
Any philosopher who argues otherwise is deceiving his readers and himself.

Life is full of surprises, which is what makes it an adventure instead of a
treadmill.

Anyway, that's my take on "uncertainty".

Essentially yours,
Ham