[MD] MOQ and Gödel's incompleteness theorems

[Ham Priday]

Hi Mark --


May I jump in here for a comment that relates to the dynamics of Value?

On Tues, Mar 8, 2011 at 4:10 PM, Mark "118" <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote to 
'T':

> I have heard the analogy that we dip our ladle into the stream of
> Quality and get experience (or something similar).  This is a fine
> analogy, except that it is also true that the ladle, the manner of
> dipping, and the one doing the dipping is also part of Quality.  In
> terms of the infinite set theories, I am still working that one out.
> My example of the "set of all sets", is more just simple set theory.
> This particular example is similar to a map within a map..., or a
> reflection of a reflection...  It points to the limits of logic.

I, too, think this analogy (I believe it came from John) is useful in 
understanding how Value(Quality) works to create the appearance of objective 
phenomena.  It is less problematic for me, however, because I do not regard 
"the ladle, the manner of dipping, and the one doing the dipping" as all 
part of Quality.

You admit you are "still working that out".  Well, let me remind you that Bo 
Skutvik encountered a similar problem when he tried to establish Intellect 
as the set of which "intellection" is a subset.  As a specialist in set 
theory, you should know that a systemized set cannot logically contain 
itself as a subset.
In analyzing this analogy, I submit that if the stream of Quality (what I 
call value-sensibility) is what the ladle is dipped into, the analog for the 
ladle is "sensibility", the manner of the dipping is "experience", and the 
act of dipping is performed by the "cognizant self".

Moreover, from an epistemological perspective (which is more familiar to me 
than sets), an observer who is posited as "a pattern of Quality" cannot 
possibly experience what he himself is patterned from without nullifying the 
pattern.  This is the principle behind my concept of the "free (independent) 
agent" which I haven't yet succeeded in conveying to you.  Rather than blame 
the "limits of logic" for your quandary, consider the possibility that your 
ontology may be misconstrued.

For the sake of dialectical understanding, let's say that the word Quality 
(DQ) is intended to represent "Ultimate Reality" or the Absolute Source.  By 
what logic can a "pattern" be formed from an absolute that is not itself 
absolute?  If Quality is absolute, patterns must be something other than 
Quality.  And, conversely, if the observing subject is a pattern of Quality, 
what the subject experiences is NOT Quality.

Despite the argument that nothing arises from nothingness, you persist in 
saying there is no need for a primary source.  Don't these examples 
demonstrate that a primary source is not only the answer to your problem but 
the fundamental principle of ontology?

Sorry, Mark, but I couldn't let your thought process abort without pointing 
to a logical solution.

Hang in there!
Ham