Arlo, Ron, All.
On 17 April:
> [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.
Thanks for a most relevant reply, yet I don't feel my message
comes through. As in the Newton example no-one would claim
that his theory belongs inside the reality it describes. It's the
meta-position that enables us to see reality in the Newtonian
light.
Likewise regarding the MOQ. It explains reality the known way
and this doesn't violate Goedel's Theorem any more than
Newton's Physics does, it's the insistence that the MOQ belongs
to its own subset - the static intellectual level - that does, grossly
so.
> 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",
Or in moqspeak "he applied SOM to SOM" (the dilemma
sequence in ZAMM) and this resulted in the insight that Quality is
the source of SOM (the latter became "intellect" in the first moq)
This resulted in the intellectual immune system kicking in and
Phaedrus' break-down. .
> and later was his recognition that NO symbolic system was ever capable
> of containing Quality,
As Phaedrus of ZAMM showed without a logical hitch the Gravity
explanation was created by Newton, hence the Quality
explanation was created by Pirsig. Newton created a physical
reality that has enabled humankind to go to the moon, Pirsig
created an even greater metaphysical reality - what it enables is
still in the future, we must agree on it first.
Ron:
> This is what seems to be the vagueness of all of it, what Bo is speaking
> Of is intent. Is intent intellectual? it is an attitude. The ancient
> masters of the sword say that the perfect form is formless. It is the
> vagueness of aim, direction and purpose-ness in living. Pirsig, I believe
> by using Terms like care and gumption, place meaning in the development of
> Intent much like the eastern martial practices. It is firmly rooted in the
> dynamic:
If anything is vague and outright illogical it's the MOQ as an
intellectual pattern. It started as one but once Phaedrus had his
insight that Quality created SOM (what became "intellect" in
ZAMM) it "took off on a purpose of its own" and left SOM as it's
own intellectual level. One must snap out of SOM's view of
"intellect" as thinking or "mind" where all ideas must be located.
Bo
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/
