Nice one Arlo (& Platt), joining up a few dots just for completeness, since these are things I keep referencing too,
I always saw wonderful symmetry between Magritte (in Einstein Meets Margitte) and Esher (Godel Esher Bach) - so many writers (in the sciences of consciousness) seem to borrow those same artistic allusions / illusions. As you say we need to "invite them in" to our Pirsigian debate. The "incompleteness" is the Godel connection in the title, and Those self-referential sentences, are the "Quines" I keep referring to. That breakdown of applying dialectic to dialectic is effectively my Catch-22 - (Platt, I CANNOT win an argument with you on your basis - axiomatic fact) - I hadn't recollected quite such an explicit reference by Pirsig in ZMM. Thanks for pointing that out Arlo. Thanks again Platt, Ian > > [Arlo] > My "connection" between Hofstadter and Pirsig derived from their view that > "analysis", when turned on itself, seems to destroy the very foundation of > itself. Specifically, in Pirsig, when you subject "scientific methodology" TO > "scientific methodology", or "dialectic method" TO "dialectic method", when > you > hypothesize ABOUT hypotheses, there is a breakdown, an unavoidable > incompleteness to where you can go. > > "Phædrus' break occurred when, as a result of laboratory experience, he > became interested in hypotheses as entities in themselves. ... He coined a law > intended to have the humor of a Parkinson's law that "The number of rational > hypotheses that can explain any given phenomenon is infinite." ... If true, > that law is not a minor flaw in scientific reasoning. The law is completely > nihilistic. It is a catastrophic logical disproof of the general validity of > all scientific method!" (ZMM) > > "Once it's stated that "the dialectic comes before anything else," this > statement itself becomes a dialectical entity, subject to dialectical > question. > ... Here is this dialectic, like Newton's law of gravity, just sitting by > itself in the middle of nowhere, giving birth to the universe, hey? It's > asinine." (ZMM) > > Hofstadter examines this from the standpoint of self-referentiality in > mathematics, and is able to extend this to language (as it is a symbol system) > in general. That is, symbol systems are great for pointing outside themselves, > but when you introduce self-referentiality you begin creating recusion, > paradox > and "strange loops". Cases in point, Epimenides Paradox, "This statement is > false" and the Star Trek robot-frying "Everything I say is a lie". > > Paradox, recursion, self-referentiality, "strange loops" reveal the Esherian > landscape around us. They are our friends, we shouldn't ignore them, we should > invite them in for tea (white, red or green). > > Thanks for brining this new book to our attention, 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.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/
