[Arlo] > I'm not sure the MOQ "overcomes" paradox and loops, and neither does > Hofstadter. My take is in their acceptance of this as an unavoidable > core to any intellection.
But I don't think the MOQ is intellection. It's valuation. And as Pirsig explained, valuation occurs before intellection. So it doesn't succumb to paradox and loops. As Roger Penrose wrote in "The Emperor's New Mind:" "We see the validity of the Godel proposition Pk(k) though we cannot derive it from the axioms . . . We need to employ insights from outside the system . . . in order to see that Pk(k) was a true proposition in the first place." I submit that the "insights from outside the system" are valuations -- the sense of "that's a good truth." As Penrose states, "When we convince ourselves of the validity of Godel's Theorem, we not only 'see' it, but by so doing we reveal the very non-algorithmic nature of the 'seeing' process itself." This "seeing" process " is Pirsig's direct experience/valuation process, the heart of the MOQ. The more I think about it, the more I become convinced that the MOQ provides a bridge over paradoxes, recursions, self-contradictions and loops because it rises above and looks down at intellectual level. But, I could be wrong. 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/
