[MD] MOQ and Gödel's incompleteness theorems

[118]

Hi Ham,

I'll just deal with one of your comments for now.  But first, a recap
of a part of our last episode:

[Mark previously]
So, the question is, is the reality you profess subservient to logic,
or is logic subservient to your ontology?
>
[Ham previously]
> 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.")
>
[Mark previously, with much snipped]>>
>> An ocean can be considered as an absolute, that does not mean that
>> patterns on the ocean are something other than ocean.
>[Ham]
> 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.
>
[Mark previously]
>> 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.
>
[Ham in response]
> 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.
>
[Mark]
Fair enough, I will try to describe my ontology in terms that I
believe will be understandable to you.  While at the same time I must
say that logic often falls apart and rhetoric comes in more useful.
Let me just say, that it is not my intention to convince you.  What I
write is not dogmatic or True.  What I will try to do, is have you
understand how I think.  Based on what I have learned from your syntax
and layout, I will do my best to explain in your vernacular. We'll see
where that takes us.

To put my ontology into perspective, when ZMM came along, I was
already heavily into Taoism, and Buddhism (specifically Zen) purely
from an intellectual interest.  Back then I was listening to Watts and
reading the latest comparisons of modern physics with Eastern
religions, and visiting Buddhist temples that my extended family was
heavily into.  I must also admit, that I was a fan of Castaneda, and
J.C. Pierce and a number of other like authors.  At the same time, my
room mate in college was a Western philosophy major, and I was a
science major (chemistry).  So my take on Quality which began early
1975 had made headway before Lila came along.  I simply say this so
that you will not "throw" Pirsig at me if I deviate from the party
line.

Over the years I have "tuned" myself into observing Quality as a
reality.  By a reality, I mean it is as real to me as falling out of a
tree.  My Quality mode of interpretation comes by changing my
perspective.  Being a scientist, I rely on empirical observations...
(not to be confused with philosophical empiricism although the two are
related.  An interesting note along these lines is that DT Suzuki
considered Buddha to be a radical empiricist (see Mysticism: Christian
and Buddhist: The Eastern and Western Way, Macmillan, 1957, available
on sacred-texts.com).  Ham you would find the relationship between
Buddha and Eckhart interesting).   ...I then take my observations and
compose a logic which satisfies them.  This is no different from
Newton creating his mechanics from what he observed.  Of course, I
have not created a mathematical reality as he did.  So, I observe a
reality around me, and then try to come up with a meaningful system
which will comprise it in a consistent way.

Changing perspective simply requires seeing objects as effects or
results of what differentiates them.  In this way, objects are similar
to words.  In this forum we state that we should not confuse words
with what they represent.  The same is true for objects in that
tempered importance should be given them.  In Zen terms, words
resulting from experience are accidental or even trivial.  Same with
objects resulting from Quality.

Two basic principles that I took away from Taoism and Zen, were the
perception of a single fabric composing everything, and the
possibility of participating in that single unity in a satisfying way.
 It is thought that Zen is based on Taoism, specifically the first two
verses, and the subsequent writings of Chuang Tsu.  So my interest in
Taoism and Zen is appropriate.  There were many influences on me
besides these two modes of thought, but I want to keep it simple.  So,
what is this single component (which some call Tao) and what does it
mean to participate directly with it (which some call Direct
Experience)?

What strikes me of this existence is the plethora of things.  There is
the materialist universe, and the non-materialist universe.  In the
second, I include my personal relationship with the cosmos.  To these
things we ascribe attributes.  The perspective I take, is to look at
what is behind these differentiating attributes.  So instead of
attributing differences due to the nature of these things themselves,
I find that one can attribute the difference to what lies in between
them (not physically of course).   Again the comparison with words
being somewhat removed from direct experience (in a way) and objects
being somewhat removed from Quality.  I, of course, do not mean
physically removed, just not the underlying reality.

What makes things interesting to me, is not the physical nature of
things, but what differentiates their distinct appearance (or personal
resonance).  It is this difference, or "separation" as I sometimes
call it, which gives the universe its character.  Since I am trying to
stay away from analogies, I will speak in theoretical terms.  X is
different from Y.  This was not due to the nature of X or Y, but is
due to what presents them as different.  This presentation is an
active phenomenon which is not held by X or Y themselves, but in a
sense creates them.  I know things by their attributes only because I
can relate such attributes to something else.  Quality is dynamic
since it changes continuously.  My awareness of X depends on how many
Y there are to compare it to.  As I become familiar with more Y's, the
original attributes of X change.  This bridge between things material
or not, is not something imaginary, but is an entity in itself.  You
feel it most of the time.

Given that there is a real entity which is creating and defining what
I perceive or feel, I play with it, and become it.  I use the term
Quality in the sense of "provider of attributes".  It is a creator of
both neumena and phenomena, and also their products.  It is the
underlying fabric of the cosmos.  Through my understanding of Quality
in the way described, it is not a difficult task to participate in it.
 This awareness and participation is, of course, Zen.  Zen has no
dogma associated with it, it is simply a path to walk along.  There
are many ways to travel Zen.

Well, this may make no sense to you, Ham, but I am happy to answer any
questions.  I may throw in an obvious analogy or two.  I've got plenty
more ways to explain the same thing, if you wish.

Muchas Gracias,

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
>