Hi Guys, On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 9:15 AM, <[email protected]> > > 2 points: > a) In Godel's proof true and false are assumed to be contradictories. > In ethical systems good and evil are assumed to be contrary; good and > not good would be contradictories. > b) In Godel's system statements are assumed true or false categorically > & provability is relative to a system of axioms/inference rules. > But an ethical system may differ in that what the ethical fundamental > principles are and what is determined good, interact. > Craig > [Mark] Good and evil can be considered as emotional adjectives (just ask a sadist). By emotional, I mean that they are imbued with Quality, which encompasses rational thought as a subset. Because of this, I have difficulty applying Godel to Quality. That is not to say that I don't find such analogies interesting, and perhaps leading.
So, what does this mean? If we use Yin Yang concepts, and see Quality as that which defines the polar ends of good and evil, there is an infinite spectrum of what lies in between. This spectrum composes the manifestations of Quality. True and false is a binary system, so in this I agree with Craig. The fact that we see things as good or bad indicates that Quality has a dynamic component which is open to us all. For consideration, is, with relation to the Metaphysics of Quality logic is not King. If instead we develop a metaphysics based on spirituality, such a metaphysics could go the same way as Christianity, Buddhism, or whatever. Such a trend is forced through logic. It is impossible to constrain one's personal relationship with the Cosmos (everything) within a framework of logic. For example it is impossible to logically or mathematically derive the existence of God, even though it has been suggested by great minds. Such logic always appeals to an intuitive part of our awareness rather than a mathematical one. The reverse is also true in that it is impossible to explain or prove quantum mechanics with the Tao Te Ching. I believe it is important to provide analogies, but with the understanding that they will not stand up to logical scrutiny, and cannot necessarily be graded by such. As such, these analogies are sign posts on a path, which may (or may not) provide direction. Quality is a path to be walked along. Whether a sign is relevant depends on where one wants to walk. Often signs will consecutively point one into a complete circle (and circles are not bad). If one is trying to figure out where to walk, then the signs can be seen as possibilities, not to be dismissed out of hand. Rational thinking is useful and fun. It would seem that most of our thoughts throughout the day, however, are not in the rational category. As such, the predominance of these "irrational" thoughts makes them of greater significance. That we tend to regard rational thought as the culmination of human thought is something we are taught in school. However it is a smaller subset of complete thought. As such the term irrational is not appropriate, since rational thought is the exception, not the rule. Cheers, 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 > 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
