[MD] MOQ and Gödel's incompleteness theorems

[X Acto]

Tuukka said to dmb:

...What even are these "camps" that, apparently, contain sworn defendants of 
this kind? Who belong to these camps? I'm quite sure that no one in their right 
mind does.

dmb says:
Pirsig and William James both invoke Coleridge to describe the rival camps. On 
that account, everyone is either a Platonist (rationalism) or an Aristotelain 
(empiricism), although Pirsig and James both think that Protagoras (Man is the 
measure) represents empiricism much better than Aristotle. As you may recall, 
the dramatic structure of ZAMM is centered around the conflict between the 
Aristotelian narrator and Phaedrus, the Platonist.  


Ron:
What are your thoughts concerning the proposal that this argument is the 
question of the "one and the 

many"   and may best be examined in those terms? especially in terms of a 
logical coherent system, 
But the difficulty has always been, how is experience both one and many. 
Aristotle contended that 

experience is one,  but explanation is many and makes the argument that 
experience is meaning.
I think once we begin to look at the history of this question it is recognized 
as the same questions
we face on the prospect of building  logical systems of quality. We find that 
these questions were
asked before. These ideas were pursued before. In fact I've been seeing it in 
the works of Voltaire
and it plays a part in Darwins motivation of writing "Origin of Species" which 
is a boring read let me say,
Aristotle and the tradition he was following proposed that experience was the 
act of carving meaning
he extended to the act of measure. So to be sure he literally meant man IS 
measure then extends
again that the act of intelligibility or the act of acquiring meaning is what is 
best, it is the good.
This was the basis on which rested his explanations. The good was the form all 
other forms precede
from, the first explanation, the act of measure the concept of the whole.
I think someone used the metaphor of ladling out of the stream of experience, 
this was his concern
and how to do this in the best manner was the topic of science.


dmb says:
Well, pragmatism is supposed to be a method for settling metaphysical disputes 
and it is offered as a mediator between the two rival camps. It entails a 
criticism of philosophical ways of thinking that reaches back to Plato's day. In 
that sense it is "meta". But the pragmatist does not pretend to stand outside or 
above the systems being analyzed. 


Ron:
I think the pragmatic conclusion is that complete systems are abstractions and 
to use them as a criteria
for truth is not rooting truth in experience.

                        
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