[MD] MOQ and Gödel's incompleteness theorems

[118]

Hi T.

If I understand your use of disproportionate, then I believe you are
misinterpreting me, or perhaps interpreting me in a nihilistic way.

On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 7:24 PM, Tuukka Virtaperko
<mail at tuukkavirtaperko.net> wrote:

>
> But any ontological theory is of the logical form "Allness is X". And this
> concept of allness cannot refer to the thing, that it clearly seems to be
> intended to refer to, unless it is used disproportionately. So ontology is
> bound to language. Whenever you have language, you also have a constraint in
> your thinking, which prevents you from perceiving the existence of certain
> things, unless you experience Dynamic Quality.
>
> After I realized this, I ceased to understand what is the point in ontology.
> I thought ontology was investigating things that are beyond language, but I
> began feeling that the very existence of ontology prevents it from
> investigating the things it is supposed to investigate.
>
> This idea, that ontology is bound to language, can be found in the following
> works:
>
> The Diamond Sutra
> Carnap's "Überwindung"
> "Logic and Ontology" in the Standord Encyclopedia of Philosophy
> (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-ontology/)
>
> However, most mainstream publications are written like nobody ever thought
> of this, which is highly confusing!

[Mark replies]
Well, I know the Diamond Sutra.  And you are right that this is
brought up in many places.  I just got through studying Wittgenstein,
who spends the first part of his career in this area only to drop it
in the second half.  I suppose that if you have enough resources, you
will find that there are no new ideas, but simply the repetition of
ideas.  This may come from the defined structure of our brains. Its
expression is somewhat redundant.
>
> Does anyone know, taking this into account, what on Earth is the point of
> ontology? I honestly don't. Ontology becomes simply a subset of moral
> philosophy, in that it is probably slightly more moral to believe in
> materialism than cartesian dualism, or in MOQ than materialism, as the
> former allegedly provides a better framework for actually making decisions
> than the latter, but there seems to remain no criteria for judging, which
> ontological system is the best, except moral criteria. However, ontology has
> not been universally recognized as a subset or moral philosophy.

[Mark replies]
Certainly there is a demoralizing place one can take your conclusions.
 And certainly this is the case if you are used to thinking that there
are absolute truths that have meaning.  The loss of this meaning can
be devastating.  I am not sure if your read Zen and the Art of
Motorcycle Maintenance, but this is what happened to the protagonist
Phaedrus.  So, indeed, it can be seen in a dismantling light.
However, if one views the intellectual process as one of radiation,
then it can take on a new meaning.  This Aristotelian notion of sets
and subsets also falls apart on examination.  Things become related
through quality rather than any absolute measurement or binding
circle.
>
> A supporter of MOQ is surely not surprised to hear that ontology becomes a
> subset of moral philosophy, because in MOQ, everything belongs to the realm
> of moral value. But conventional philosophers apparently don't think this
> way, and it puzzles me. What -do- they think?

[Mark]
I am not quite sure what you mean by a subset here, one can have a
moral ontology, I think.
>
> "There is a dogmatic side to this forum, which along with other things
> states that
> Quality should not be defined."
>
> My more formal view of Quality goes something like this: The least
> theoretically possible amount of Quality is 0. Not, for example, minus
> infinity. In this sense, any act is good, but some are more good or less
> good than others. This is not how the words "good" and "evil" are commonly
> used. Therefore let it be so that after an evil act there is less Quality
> than there was before the act, and after a good act there is more Quality
> than there used to be. So the pair "good" and "evil" cannot be contemplated
> without taking time into account.
>
> Here, I do not think I'm really defining Quality, but a way of speaking of
> it. So how is it relevant to tell me, that Quality should not be defined?

[Mark]
This is similar to the Taoist line: The Tao that can be named is not
the eternal Tao".  That is, as soon as something is defined, it
becomes encompassed, and most of it is left out.  In this way, the
definition is misleading.  I think that what is needed is to work with
Quality, and not make it a subset (if you will) of some dogmatic
philosophical metaphysics.  One can work with it to create.
>
> I'm not saying my view is the only correct one, but I'm saying we need to
> share a way of speaking, or there's no point in speaking.

[Mark]
My sense it to view opinions on this forum as analogies from something
they cannot express.  I never take any rigorous definition as a truth.
To do so only sets up obsticals.
>
Thanks for your input.

Mark
>
>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>