Thank you for laying these examples out so nicely. Viva la paradox!!! -Marsha
On Feb 2, 2010, at 12:18 PM, Arlo Bensinger wrote: > [Marsha] > I must say it nice to think we agree. > > [Arlo] > We do. And me too. > > What's interesting to note is that there are two key-points in ZMM where > Pirsig references "self-reference" and the subsequent paradox. First is > during his early experience in the Acadamy, when he pondered on the nature of > hypotheses. > > "If Phædrus had entered science for ambitious or utilitarian purposes it > might never have occurred to him to ask questions about the nature of a > scientific hypothesis as an entity in itself. But he did ask them, and was > unsatisfied with the answers.... Phædrus' break occurred when, as a result of > laboratory experience, he became interested in hypotheses as entities in > themselves" (ZMM) > > Here Pirsig describes the recursive paradox that occurs when the scientific > method is turned onto itself. He comments on Einstein's response to this > recursive paradox, describing it as such "There is no logical path to these > laws; only intuition, resting on sympathetic understanding of experience, can > reach them -- ." (ZMM) > > Instead of heading Einstein's wisdom, modern "science" has simply attempted > to sweep the paradox under the rug, and this is the first glimpse we have of > what would become Pirsig's main thesis in ZMM. > > "What Phædrus observed on a personal level was a phenomenon, profoundly > characteristic of the history of science, which has been swept under the > carpet for years. The predicted results of scientific enquiry and the actual > results of scientific enquiry are diametrically opposed here, and no one > seems to pay too much attention to the fact.... The major producer of the > social chaos, the indeterminacy of thought and values that rational knowledge > is supposed to eliminate, is none other than science itself. And what Phædrus > saw in the isolation of his own laboratory work years ago is now seen > everywhere in the technological world today. Scientifically produced > antiscience...chaos." (ZMM) > > Pirsig then goes on to relate his reading of Poincare, which contains this > summation. > > "Then, having identified the nature of geometric axioms, [Poincare] turned to > the question, Is Euclidian geometry true or is Riemann geometry true? He > answered, The question has no meaning." (ZMM) > > "The question has no meaning". In other words, "mu". > > The second point of self-referential paradox occurs in the Chairman's > classroom. > > "He shouldn't have cut it off, Phædrus thinks to himself. Were he a real > Truth-seeker and not a propagandist for a particular point of view he would > not. 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." (ZMM) > > Here is a clear point where Pirsig describes the paradox of self-reference. > And this is why Pirsig acknowledges that had Socrates NOT said "all this is > just an analogy", "he wouldn't have been telling the "Truth."" (ZMM). > > Nor would Pirsig be. > > > > > At 11:47 AM 2/2/2010, you wrote: > >> Arlo, >> >> I must say it nice to think we agree. >> >> Marsha >> >> >> >> On Feb 2, 2010, at 11:41 AM, Arlo Bensinger wrote: >> >> > [Marsha] >> > I think the MoQ tolerates paradox because... >> > >> > [Arlo] >> > Agree. The passage you refer to is about encoding experience via symbolic >> > meaning. The "analytic knife" passage from ZMM also goes over this ground. >> > >> > "From all this awareness we must select, and what we select and call >> > consciousness is never the same as the awareness because the process of >> > selection mutates it." (ZMM) >> > >> > Pirsig goes on to explain what continues to escapte Platt. >> > >> > "To understand what he was trying to do it's necessary to see that part of >> > the landscape, inseparable from it, which must be understood, is a figure >> > in the middle of it, sorting sand into piles. To see the landscape without >> > seeing this figure is not to see the landscape at all." (ZMM) >> > >> > This sets the stage for his subsequent "All this is just an analogy" >> > statement, indeed, just as he comments on how Socrates would by lying if >> > he hadn't said this previously, so too does this hold true for HIS >> > statements of "truth". >> > >> > This is really not anything new, and was formalized by Godel's >> > Incompleteness Theorums. Language, like "mathematics", is also a >> > formalized symbolic system subject to these same limitations. It is not a >> > failure of language, nor is it "proof" of some absolute, but a >> > mu-recognition that all symbolic systems powerful enough to make >> > meaningful descriptions of reality will always contain the paradoxes of >> > recursion and self-reference. I think that was what Pirsig was talking >> > about in the passage you provided. >> > >> > >> > 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/
