[MD] The Word is Not the Thing

[plattholden at gmail.com]

Thanks, Arlo. You proved my point with this incoherent post. Hofstadter
firmly believes in the "oops" theory of creation so I'm not surprised you 
idolize
him. And to compare yourself to Zen Masters -- what more is there to 
say? 
Anyway, your paranoia about Limbaugh and talk radio always manages 
to
surface when you get unstable. So it's time to move on.      


On 21 Sep 2009 at 20:25, ARLO J BENSINGER JR wrote:

> [Arlo previously]
> Language is fundamentally recursive, and hence paradox laden. 
> 
> [Platt]
> Then that statement is fundamentally recursive and paradox laden, i.e.,
> profoundly incoherent.
> 
> [Arlo]
> Of course it is. Rocket science!!
> 
> [Platt]
> If anyone wonders why the MOQ remains academically stillborn this admission
> from Pirsig is probably the reason. Postmodern thinking (It's a fact there are
> no facts.)
> 
> [Arlo]
> Actually, the very fact that it IS postmodern (a "contradiction in terms", a
> "logical absurdity") is what is hindering it in an academy still, often, glued
> to the idea that paradox and recursion are frightful things. Oddly, this has
> been your demeanor all along.
> 
> "Quality is undefinable" is, in fact, a definition. More rocket science!! And
> while Zen Masters and postmodern thinkers get this easily, for some reason it
> appears to be beyond you.
> 
> Your halfway right, the "postmodern thinker" would say "its a fact there are no
> fact", and then actually understand the self-reflexive paradox such recursion
> causes. 
> 
> He, as Pirsig, would see it as a limit to language, but one that when dealt
> with playfully accepts these limitations. Indeed, making such a "gotcha" to a
> "postmodern thinker" would likely only produce laughter. I can imagine
> Hofstadter actually pitying you for thinking such a kid's "revelation" gives
> you any substance. 
> 
> In any event, you are making headway now. "All this is just an analogy" is a
> statement that when examined self-reflexively produces paradox. While I do
> believe Pirsig believed his audience would get this without belaboring the
> point, it is good to see you finally appearing to understand. 
> 
> [Platt]
> There he goes again -- "always present" -- incomplete and recursive, or so he
> says, contradicting himself. 
> 
> [Arlo]
> And then you go and say something like this.
> 
> I can hear the collective thoughts of great postmodern minds like Pirsig and
> Hofstadter going "well... duh...." Of course the statement that "language is
> always paradoxical" when read self-reflectively produces paradox (viva la
> recursion!). That is not "contradicting", it is merely the limit of language...
> indeed, of ANY self-reflexive symbolic system (thank you, Mr. Hofstadter!)... 
> 
> Oh well... I tried... Again, you appear to only be motivated by a need to
> attack me. What's the matter, did Limbaugh get your nads all bunjeed up today?
> Go ahead, Arlo will provide the catharsis!