Platt Holden (pholden@worldnet.att.net)
Sun, 1 Feb 1998 05:11:36 +0100
Hi Doug,
> > 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.
> >
> > Don't see a problem. Pirsig says, "Thought is not a path to reality.
> > It
> > carries you away from it." Also, our first principle asserts that
> > Quality
> > (reality) is impossible to define. What am I missing?
> >
> > Platt
> >
> > --
> Platt,
>
> Do we agree that Quality has two divisions? Do we agree that one
> division is SQ and the other is DQ? Do we agree that DQ is
> undefinable? Do we agree that SQ is inherently definable via the
> process of SPoV latching?
>
> Each (language) description of reality is in SQ. Each is a latched
> SPoV. Descriptions build from more primitive, latched SPoVs we call
> words or symbols. (All of these SPoVs mutate by DQ influence.)
>
> Do you agree?
>
> By analogy :), each lifeform interpretation (description) of reality is
> in SQ (our bodies, other animals, plants, etc.). Lifeforms similarly
> build from more primitive SPoVs we call cells, etc.
>
> Do you agree?
>
> By greater analogy, all that we perceive as SQ (planets, solar systems,
> galaxies, universes, etc.) may be described similarly.
>
> Do you agree?
>
> If catch 32 is a good catch, to me, then it implies that there is no way
> to build a metaphor of reality. I disagree with that conclusion.
> Clearly we use SPoVs all the time to bootstrap higher intellectual
> patterns as part of our attempts to understand reality.
>
> Did I miss something?
>
> Mtty,
>
> Doug Renselle.
Well, I'm a bit surprised that one as familiar with quantum mechanics as
you questions Catch 32. At the quantum level, all dualisms such as
Subject/Object, Dynamic/Static break down and we find not certainty but an
Uncertainty Principle. Similarly in the mental world of logic we find not
complete truth but an Incompleteness Theorem. I assumed these discoveries
-- quantum weirdness, uncertainty and incompleteness -- were the
"outside-the-MoQ" confirmation of your "many contexts, many truths"
insight.
Admittedly, we do not live our daily lives concerned about what's going on
in the quantum world. In the context of the practical world, where to
survive and make a living is our paramount static biological concern, we
can build as many metaphors of reality as we wish. In fact, we must do so
to survive. (Remember Catch 34: To continue to exist, we must divide
indivisible existence.) But the metaphors, no matter how high their
quality, are not reality. Maps are not the territory. You can't take a
vacation to Miami by looking at a Rand McNally atlas; you can't satisfy
your hunger by looking at a menu.
Catch 32 is a combination of the Incompleteness Theorem and infinite
regress. Let's say you take a picture (make a metaphor) of the moon. Before
you took the picture, reality was the moon. After your took the picture,
reality became the moon plus the picture of it. To take a picture of this
"new" reality, you have to take a picture of the moon and the picture of
the picture of the moon. Now reality includes the moon, the picture the
moon, and a picture of both. To show this new reality containing three
items, you take another picture, etc., etc. ad infinitum. And, as Pirsig
says, you get carried further and further away from the moon, the reality.
Or, as Zen would say, in pointing a finger at the moon, do not confuse the
finger with the moon itself.
Whitehead put this in another context. He said the process of abstraction
(making a metaphor) is ultimately false. It operates by noting the salient
features of an object and ignoring all else (including the mind that made
the abstraction). Thus, "Abstraction is nothing else than omission of part
of the truth. We have mistaken our abstractions (metaphors) for concrete
realities", a mistake he named the Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness.
So I agree with everything you say. Except that you didn't say everything.
Neither can Whitehead, Pirsig, me or anyone else. We're all limited by our
verbal, metaphorical, abstractive, rational context. As Pirsig says,
"Trying to create a perfect metaphysics is like trying to create a perfect
chess strategy, one that will win every time. You can't do it. it's out of
the range of human capability." (Lila, Chap. 9)
That's why I love the guy -- the first philosopher who ever admitted he
could be wrong! And since I'm more often wrong than right, I await your
response to put me back on the high quality path:)
Platt
Catch 35: If I have a fly in my eye, how can I see that I have a fly in my
eye?
-- 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