LS Re: Catches


Platt Holden (pholden@worldnet.att.net)
Thu, 5 Feb 1998 05:48:19 +0100


Hi Doug,

Doug wrote::

>Platt,

>Here is Catch 32 again:

>Catch 32: Words cannot really describe reality because the words we use
>to describe reality are part of the reality we're trying to describe.
>
>Let's make your change:
>
>Catch 32: Words cannot COMPLETELY describe reality because the words we
>use to describe reality are part of the reality we're trying to
>describe.
>
>In my view, "Words cannot completely describe reality." has potential
>for truth. The because… part to me is suspect, for all the reasons I
>enunciated in prior emails.
>
>Let me ask a question: What in our perception of reality cannot be used
>to describe our perception of it?
>
>Once we have that answer we can substitute it for the term ‘words’ in
>Catch 32.
>
>What do you think?

Let's substitute "eyes" for "words" and see what we get:

Our eyes cannot completely see reality because the eyes we use to see
reality are part of the reality we're trying to see.

Or try this:

We can never see the complete context because we are part of the context
we're trying to see.

Or consider this:

All models of reality created by the mind are flawed because they leave out
the mind that created the model.

Along these lines, here's what William James said about a "full fact:"

"… objects so far as experience yield them are but ideal pictures of
something whose existence we do not inwardly possess but only point at
outwardly, while the inner state is our very experience itself; its reality
and that of our experience are one. A conscious field plus its object as
felt or thought plus an attitude towards the object plus a sense of self to
whom the attitude belongs -- such a concrete bit of personal experience may
be a small bit as long as it lasts; not hollow, not a mere abstract element
of the experience such as the 'object' when taken alone. It is a full fact
of the kind to which all realities whatsoever must belong."

Others reading this may ask, "What has this to do with the MoQ?"'

I would suggest that what gets left out of our descriptions (static
patterns) of reality is James' "conscious field," i.e. Pirsig's Dynamic
Quality.

The problem, as usual, is our SOM mindset that assumes that we (subjects)
are independent of reality (objects). This was the stance that scientists
took until they met the quantum world and to their amazement discovered
that reality depended on their being part of it. Still, many scientists and
most people believe they can accurately and completely describe reality
without including themselves in it.

Are we seeing eye to eye?

Platt

Catch 37: If religion requires belief in unprovable truth, then math is the
only religion that can prove it's a religion. (Thanks to Godel's Theorem)

--
post message - mailto:lilasqd@hkg.com
unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com
homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:46 CEST