Yes Platt, but that's recursion between objects at the same level, same category, objects - a problem for anyone. (Though in fact when you come across it, you should suspect a category error with at least one of the objects you're talking about, before believing the logic.)
Not a problem when one of the "objects" is a metaphysics, or in the "whacko" case tat Pirsig quotes, a problem because man and science are being treated like objects ... the very problem he was fixing by considering a better metaphysics. Ian On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 10:26 PM, Platt Holden <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 12:30 PM, Ian Glendinning <[email protected] >> wrote: > >> Joining up dots between: >> >> (Agreeing with Arlo that) the bogey-man of recursion in a metaphysics >> including its own definition is a non-problem for an enlightened mind. >> > > [Pirsig] > > You can't have Box "A" contain within itself Box "B," which in turn contains > Box "A." That's whacko. Yet here's a "science" which contains "man" which > contains "science" which contains "man" which contains "science"—on and on. > (Lila, 4) > > Recursion seems to be a problem for Pirsig. > > Regards, > > Platt > 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 > 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
