[MD] MOQ and Gödel's incompleteness theorems

[Ham Priday]

Good evening, Mark --


[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.

[Skipping two paragraphs of personal history]:

> 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.

The "physical nature of things" has been mapped empirically by the 
physicists.  I need to know what is their "real nature" in your Zennist 
perspective.  (You seem to be avoiding this issue.)  If things are not 
"patterns of Quality", what ARE they, beyond "sensed attributes" and "the 
bridges between them"?

Also, how is this "presentation", which you call "an active phenomenon", 
produced or created?  You state above that Quality "is a creator of both 
noumena and phenomena."  Does this mean that Quality creates the knowing 
(conscious) self as well as the experience of this knower?  In other words, 
does the conscious agent, in your opinion, have no active role in existence 
other than to interpret what Quality "presents" to him?   (This would be the 
equivalent of being forced to watch a "virtual projection of reality" for a 
lifetime with no possibility of altering or contributing to it.)

Finally, if Quality is the primary source, does it embody the good, as well 
as the mediocre and the bad, or is this a "corruption" of Quality by an 
imperfect knower?  And if the former, why call it "quality" in the first 
place?   Why not just chalk it up to the vagaries of a pluralistic universe?

Your humble protégé,
Ham