[MD] MOQ and Gödel's incompleteness theorems

[118]

Hi Ham,
Thank you for your response and your questions.  Again, I will do my
best to answer them in a manner which is acceptable to you.  However,
to do this I must reference concepts which are familiar to you.  By
the way, I am your protégé.

On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 9:23 PM, Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:

[Ham]
> 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"?

[Mark]
When you state that such things have been mapped by physicists, let me
clarify.  Physicists observe phenomenon.  From this they create a
logic or system to provide meaning to their observations.  This logic
arises out of their empirical observations, and such logic did not
exist before that.  In this way, the logic is created to fit their
observations.  This is what the intellect does, it creates, it can not
reveal, that is impossible.

To explain the real nature, you are asking me to create an object, of
rigorous ontology as you use for your absolute essence.  I still find
this difficult and am working on it with your help.  Let me use the
following example.  Words can be considered objects.  When I use such
objects to reveal a picture to you, are you able to see the picture?
In other words, are those words the picture?  The objects of the
universe are similar.  The objects of the universe are not the
universe, they are descriptions of the universe.  In the past I have
described the real nature to be Intent.  I know this does not satisfy
you, However, this word is illuminating for me.

Patterns of Quality is a descriptive term which is not reality's real
nature, I do not find it a very useful concept.  How is it possible to
encompass real nature with a description?  I can describe a baseball
game till I go blue, but is that the real nature of the baseball game?
 Do you see my difficulty in providing you with a satisfactory answer?
 Zen does not have dogma, it simply provides a path.  As such, some
signs may be more meaningful than others, but that is up to the
individual.  I will continue to try to provide that which may be
meaningful to you; I have found that MoQ is one such possibility.
>
> 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.)

[Mark]
I am not sure if you are asking how Quality is created, or how Quality
creates.  Quality is not created, it is.  Quality creates for us
through the interaction of the environment with our brains.  Of course
it is much more complex than this, but I think this answers your
question.  Logical descriptions can be given for other forms of
creation, and such logic is always changing to maintain
meaningfulness.  As I constantly say, our awareness of reality is a
creative process.

You ask if we are passive observers of what is occurring between our
brains and the environment.  In many ways we are, and this is a
purpose of Zen training.  That is, to be aware of this.  However, as
you may remember, I bring in the concept of free will.  One of the
bases of Quality, as I have created through appropriate logic, is that
everything has free will.  It doesn't just start with our brains,
since there is no mechanism within just the brain to do this.
However, the brain does have free will, just like everything else,
from the photons to the planets.

Just so that you don't become hyperbolic about this, free-will does
not mean that everything becomes completely random (although it may be
just that, and we have gotten used to it and consider it normal), but
there is tendency in Quality, and harmony.  Many consider this
tendency to be circular or linear, but I prefer the harmonic motion of
a wave function.  Planets operate in high Quality by circling the sun,
but it is their choice to do so.  Yes we do have an active role to
choose between one quality or another.  Each individual nerve in our
heads has the same choice, and each sodium atom as it crosses the
nerve membrane, and so forth.  Quality unfolds and has no preset
destination, it is a complex series of decisions.
>
> 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?

[Mark]
Good an evil are manners in which we create an objective world.  If I
were to say that Quality is both good and evil, I would be making
Quality subordinate to my objectification.  However, if I get the gist
of your question, my answer is "yes" it embodies both good an evil,
and the notion of a "corruption".  Perfection is yet another subject,
and I have to assume perfection, otherwise things would be different.
A lot of decisions have gone into bringing this exact moment together.
 There is no imperfect knower, for such a thing would have to assume a
better way of knowing.  What would such a thing be?

I am not describing a pluralistic universe, but just the opposite.
The reason the word Quality seems appropriate as a symbolic finger
pointing, is that everything contains qualities.  The sum total of all
of this is Quality.  I suppose I can call it anything I want, but that
would not be very useful in a discussion.  By using the term Quality,
I am trying to point at what I see.
>
Yours sincerely,
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
>