[MD] MOQ and Gödel's incompleteness theorems

[Ham Priday]

Hey, Mark --

On Wed., March 9, 2011 at 3:30 PM, Mark "118" <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Ham,
> Thank you for your post, and I appreciate your logic.  I have some
> comments below.
>
> Just to clarify, what I am working out is an analogy from the arena
> of infinite set theory and its applications to Quality as I see it.  I am
> not a specialist, but what you say is true concerning set theory, as
> far as I know.  This is why I bring it up.  I also point to the limits
> of logic as it is currently used for this area of math.  It is these
> limits that I am addressing.  Math progresses as does any logical
> creation.

I understand there is something called "synthetic logic" which allows for 
premises outside the scope of sets and empirical relations.  However, I 
don't believe we can build a logical basis for metaphysical conclusions 
except, perhaps, to promote their plausibility.  The same is true of 
mathematical constructions.  I guess what I'm saying is that in metaphysics 
the conception itself is primary and more significant than any analogy or 
logic employed to support it.

[Ham, previously]:
> I, too, think [the ladled Quality] analogy 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.
>
> 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.

[Mark]:
> Believe me, I have been through these circular arguments.  Which is
> why I am looking for the appropriate analogy which will help explain
> my position.  If we use your logic, and put such logic as the defining
> principle, that is, place our ontologies as subservient to the current
> logic you profess, then indeed you could say that it is misconstrued.
> The purpose is to enable logic to use it as an explanation.  So, the
> question is, is the reality you profess subservient to logic, or is logic
> subservient to your ontology?

Probably the latter.  If your aim is to convince me, you'll need to describe 
your ontology as best you can in
terms we both understand.  Once I begin to grasp the overall concept, logic 
and analogy can make it more palatable.  You have yet to explain what 
Quality means to you, and why differentiation its main function.  It would 
seem that Quality can mean almost anything we make it -- goodness, virtue, 
value, excellence, desirable, precious, appealing, comfortable, meritable, 
harmonious, balanced, beautiful, bountiful, etc., etc.  And that's just 
"HIGH" Quality!  Pirsig's best effort at explaining Quality was to say 
"everyone knows what it is."  (That was before he came up with the 
'equivalency' equation: "Experience = Quality = Reality.")

[Ham]:
> 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?

[Mark]:
> As you know, dialectical understanding is a tool which attempts to
> reveal a Truth.  Such truth is something that exists, and is waiting to be
> discovered.  I do not subscribe to this understanding.  The approach
> that you are taking is to create independent principles that act together.
> That is, there is an absolute source, and process of negation, and an
> aware being.  All of these things are acting together.  My approach is
> to create a single source (primary source, if you will) which encompasses
> everything.  This is just a matter of choice.  But I have found that if 
> one
> draws strict demarcations between separate entities, the logic falls 
> apart,
> and requires several assumptions rather than just one.  So my approach
> is to simplify your approach.
>
> An ocean can be considered as an absolute, that does not mean that
> patterns on the ocean are something other than ocean.

No, but a pattern on the ocean (e.g., "wave") is not what we mean by an 
"ocean".  So the analogy is somewhat of a rhetorical ruse.  It seems to me 
that throwing word symbols around to express a concept is an exercise in 
futility.  Better to explain the dynamics of the concept and let the words 
fall into place as the description dictates.  As I have pointed out before, 
the problem with metaphysics is that it deals with two realities: the 
differentiated world of appearances and the ultimate source of creation. 
Neither is a "subset" of the other, yet the relation of the two must be 
accounted for if metaphysics is to have any meaning for mankind.  The copout 
is an ontology like existentialism which dismisses anything that falls 
outside the realm of experiential existence.

> I would just state (again), that Quality can be considered the primary
> source.  So, I do have my answer, just not in the way you prefer.

A rose by any other name smells just as aweet to me.  So if you can explain 
how a primary source called Quality brings empirical reality into existence 
without violating the fundamental laws of nature or logic, you will earn my 
everlasting respect.

Best wishes for the success of your project,
Ham