Arlo, I think I might disagree ?
You CAN put the MoQ in the MoQ. That's what Hofstader's strange-loops
tell us. You can have self-reference so long as it is on a different
level - the strange-loop created is the source of new patterns
evolving in the higher level.
The MoQ and a description of the MoQ are on different levels so the
circularity is OK, but such loops are dynamic, not static.
It's an "active way of being" for anything in the world, is a good way
of looking at it
Ian
On 4/17/08, Arlo Bensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [Bo]
> Before I have tried the same example in a lesser scale, about
> Newton's Physics place within Newton's Physics, but I don't think it
> got through.
>
> [Arlo]
> Maybe this is stating the obvious, but the problem here
> ("containment" as you refer to it) is one of self-reference, that is,
> trying to use something to define itself. This puts us right
> smack-dab into the paradoxes and recursions of Goedel and, to a
> lesser but important sense, Pirsig.
>
> For young Phaedrus, a critical point was the attempt to apply the
> "scientific method TO the scientific method", then it was "turning
> analytic reason back on itself", and later was his recognition that
> NO symbolic system was ever capable of containing Quality, "Since the
> One is the source of all things and includes all things in it, it
> cannot be defined in terms of those things, since no matter what
> thing you use to define it, the thing will always describe something
> less than the One itself.", along with a final "nod" to
> self-reference when he laments the Chairman's approach "He might
> learn something. Once it's stated that "the dialectic comes before
> anything else," this statement itself becomes a dialectical entity,
> subject to dialectical question."
>
> When you try to "put the MOQ into the MOQ" you are at a stall point.
> You simply can not contain a system within itself without leading to
> the "strange loops", paradoxes and recursions that brings. As
> Hofstadter refers to it, this is the "essential incompleteness" of
> any system, it can never contain itself. And so, as Pirsig points
> out, the only way to reference a system from within its system is by
> allegory, analogy and indirect pointers.
>
> This is what you are doing (and I add, correctly), and why it is not
> only "not easy" to define the MOQ in terms of itself, but IMPOSSIBLE.
> And this is why saying "the MOQ is an intellectual pattern within a
> system called the MOQ" is immediately self-referential and hence paradoxical.
>
> Maybe the MOQ is not a thing (I am just speculating based on recent
> thoughts), but a "doing". Maybe it is better to think of the MOQ not
> as a pattern, but as a Verb. This would tie somewhat into Platt's
> "Weltanschauung" which translates almost as a "thing" (worldview) but
> in German means something more "active", more like a "way of
> being". And that certainly gets as well to your suggestion that it's
> "how we live".
>
>
> 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>
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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
