From: ian glendinning (psybertron@gmail.com)
Date: Wed Sep 07 2005 - 19:47:43 BST
Arlo, Platt,
Great post Arlo, I've been banging on about Hofstadter (GEB)
[Quote] "Truth is relative" is an absolute truth. Mu. [Unquote]
... is a great extracted summary, (provided the unwary don't slip into
the hoary old trap of thinking relative means anything remotely like
arbitrary.)
Two thirds of GEB is creative writing about creative art (Escher and Bach)
ZMM is a work of art; can there be any doubt Platt, that we're here
because of the need to bring the art that "classical" rationality
lacks, to the fore ?
"That's a bear, not a rabbit / platypus / gavegai" is far from being
an absolute truth. It's a very useful, pragmatic, static pattern of
social value, a latch to prevent Socrates from being eaten alive, in
order to nurture the evolving intellectual patterns in his head. (A
very long-lived and very valuable social pattern, it has to be said,
but not absolute. The only concept we needed was a useful truth.)
Platt, you and I are back to an earlier impasse, We both \9and Arlo
and the rest) place high value on both art (as well as "science"), but
you still seem to keep them in distinct separate boxes for separate
occasions, whereas I firmly believe an expanded definition of
rationality can incorporate both without any harmful compromise.
Surely that's what the MoQ is (or at least is trying to be) ?
When you quote Paul Davies, I don't quite get your logic ..
[Quote] [Quote] If we wish to progress beyond, we have to embrace a
different concept of "understanding" from that of rational
explanation." [Unquote]
That's why I keep pushing art [Unquote] (??)
I totally agree - I'm pushing art too, into classical rationality to
create that "new rationality" a new "quality of explanation" - it's
already got a name "MoQ. Where are you pushing it ?
Why do I find you so infuriating :-) ?
Ian
On 9/7/05, Platt Holden <pholden@sc.rr.com> wrote:
> Hi Arlo, Gav, All
>
> I think you guys have nailed at least one important aspect of the problem
> of "truth." The physicist, Paul Davies, put it this way:
>
> "But in the end a rational explanation for the world in the sense of a
> close and complete system of logical truths is almost certainly
> impossible. We are barred from ultimate knowledge, from ultimate
> explanation, by the very rules of reasoning that prompt us to seek an
> explanation in the first place. If we wish to progress beyond, we have to
> embrace a different concept of "understanding" from that of rational
> explanation."
>
> Which is why I keep pushing art, and why Arlo is right on target in
> explaining why Pirsig chose the art form of a novel for his metaphysics.
>
> The other aspect of the problem of "truth" has to do with life and living.
> Even Pirsig pays homage to "logical consistency." The paradox is simply
> that to continue to exist we must divide indivisible existence. Without a
> concept of absolute truth, such as "That's a bear, not a rabbit," we
> wouldn't last long, nor would life have arisen in the first place.
>
> It all goes to show why, metaphysically speaking, I'm a "mysterian,"
> believing there's something there -- whether Consciousness, God, Essence,
> or Quality -- but that we can never quite put our finger on, getting
> glimpses of it only through art and beauty.
>
> Thanks to Art and Gav for bringing this to the forefront.
>
> Best,
> Platt
>
> > Platt, Gav, All...
> >
> > [About Platt's Paradox of Truth Assertation, Gav wrote]
> > maybe the uncertainty principle explains what you guys are talking about:
> >
> > if so then the more specific a truth statement the more provisional it is,
> > ie the more you pinpoint the truth the less you know about how that truth
> > is evolving, moving, going (its momentum); conversely the more general a
> > truth statement the less provisional but also the more vague.
> >
> > [Arlo]
> > I think this hits the nail on the head. I've been thinking of the
> > Incompleteness Theorem (from Wikipedia: For any formal theory in which
> > basic arithmetical facts are provable, it is possible to construct an
> > arithmetical statement which, if the theory is consistent, is true but not
> > provable or refutable in the theory.)
> >
> > In my opinion, a symbolic language system is in many ways a "formal
> > theory", and so will always be incomplete, unable to "prove" or "refute"
> > certain statements even if we know them to be "true". The more we try to
> > solve the problem through the creation of even more formal systems, the
> > greater the problem becomes (as expressed in GEB: An Eternal Golden Braid).
> >
> > Since we think in language, this incompleteness seems paradoxical. But it
> > is a "fault" only of systems in their ability to symbolically represent a
> > whole. This is one of the "meanings" I see in Magritte's "The False
> > Mirror". Namely that the "I", as it "sees" (symbolically constructs) the
> > world, it can't see that at the core is an unrepresentable, always
> > incomplete, aspect of the system.
> >
> > As the theorem states, there is no "work around" for this. No "symbolic
> > system" that could be made stronger to capture this. No "logic" that could
> > ever reach it. The only way it can be approached is by going outside of the
> > symbolic system; meditation, art, koans, music, are all aides that help
> > with the dissolution (momentarily) of the symbolic constructs that is the
> > "I".
> >
> > To answer a continuing charge of Ham's towards Pirsig being a "novelist", I
> > counter that this is exactly the point. By using art, by writing in an
> > expressive medium that loosens the shackles of symbolic representation even
> > slightly, Pirsig is pointing towards something that can never, ever be
> > realized by building and building and building more elaborate symbolic,
> > logic structures. He is, of course, trying to expand the formal system to
> > pay heed, or take into account, the core which lies outside it... which it
> > can only do analogously, metaphorically or tangentally, since that core
> > will always, must always, lay outside of any formal system. And he does so
> > by practicing what he preaches.
> >
> > But, as Platt says, that's an argument for another day.
> >
> > At the core of language will always be paradox, incompleteness and a void
> > of unprovable yet unrefutable statements. The only way out is to leave the
> > system.
> >
> >
> > "Truth is relative" is an absolute truth. Mu.
> >
> > Arlo
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archives:
> Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 07 2005 - 20:40:01 BST