Thank you William for your thoughtful comments. Much appreciated.
You have pin-pointed some of the key problems of this kind of
endeavour. I'll expand on a few of them.
On 23 Oct 95 at 11:36, William Lenco wrote:
[..]
The Starting Point Problem
====================
> >This means that the Starting Point is of a Socratic nature - all you know
>> with absolute certainty is that you don't know anything
> I dislike it when people attribute this to a Socratic or Platonic nature but
> know what you mean. Heidegger's critique of the Cartesian starting point,
> while not exactly analogus, points in the direction that this is a bad
> starting spot. {maybe it is not a bad place to start, but it is suspect).
You are quite justified in homing in on this one! As I read somewhere, every
philosophy is just a new definition or conception of the starting point. My
Socratic Starting Point statement was just a cheap way to get a complex
message across.
The problem is - how can one _formalise_ the Socratic Starting
Point notion? The fundamental objections you raise must be resolved in such a
formalism.
Formalising the Initial Duality
=====================
Choosing the starting point is not a problem as this is already a fait
accompli. The very act of theorising - like we are doing - implies this. The
immediate consequence of this foolish act is to deform what we are talking
about. There is no need to create a duality and there is no escape from
duality. The very act of starting to theorise, think, talk about it all has
created a duality. Theory divides from object, consciousness from reality
etc.. This is analogous to Heisenburg's uncertainty principle where the act of
measurement deforms that being measured.. Here, it is the act of theorising. .
The act of theorising is kind of "original sin" which deforms the inherent
unity of it all and introduces the first Point of View. The Spectator creates
the Spectacle or vice versa. It is a subjective Spectacle. This is a necessary
and inescapable "sin." . The only way of avoiding it is to engage in some kind
of deep mediation and seek sublime Oneness with the Cosmos. This might give
one a deep warm glow but can never lead to theory.
Having committed the "sin" it is necessary to make the necessary adjustments.
This can be achieved by guaranteeing that even though there is a difference
created in this original dichotomy, if this difference can be maintained as an
_indistingishable_ difference, then you won't be able to discern the "sin."
This leads to the basic generic principle of consciousness (or read,
substitute -> objective theory). Consciousness is characterised by its
inability to distinguish between the entities of consciousness and the
corresponding entities of reality. David Chalmers has referred to explaining
the relationship between consciousness and reality as the Hard Problem. In
generic science, the Hard Problem not treated as a problem but as a basic
system invariant. Consciousness must maintain at all costs the
indistinguishablity of the two sides of the equation whilst maintaining the
difference. If it fails to continually achieve this then we have a
consciousness suffering from a severe system integrity disorder. Consciousness
is thus obliged to ape reality - or is it reality that is aping consciousness?
The answer to this question must be maintained as forever undecidable.
The formalisation of the indistinguishablity of the difference is achieved by
gender - the most elementary and fundamental form of relative typing. The
(feminine) entity which _has_ an attribute is different but indistinguishable
from the (masculine) entity which _is_ this attribute. Given one, you can
never absolutely know which one. Using the gender construct the entities of
theory/consciousness can potentially be expressed as being different but
indistinguishable from the entities of theory-object/reality.
Formalising the Starting Point
=====================
Starting with an initial duality is inescapable, but which duality? Moreover,
which side of the duality do we start with?
These questions are answered by starting with any entity whatsoever. Sounds
vague. The formalisation of the concept?
In mathematical Category theory one can arrive at unique representations of
_mathematical_ entities.. The basic paradigm is that these representations are
"unique to within a choice of isomorphism " . In generic theory, this paradigm
is replaced by constructing representations of entities which are "unique to
within a subjective choice of any entity whatsoever." (No axioms are thus
needed to define what the hell an isomorphism is, for example) Instead of
being representations of mathematical entities, this leads to representations
of _generic_ entities which are unique to within a .....
What this means is that the theory -expressed in terms of its representations
- must be *starting point invariant*. In other words, no matter where you
start and what you start with, you always get the same (generic) theory.
Relativity theories rely on invariants. In the Special Theory in physics, the
invariant is the speed of light. In the absolute relativity theory of generic
theory, the invariant is the Starting Point. (I started with this and got
that...but what if I had started with that - the same theory should result)
This places draconian constraints on the system. Working within these
constraints I have been able to construct the first few of the elementary
generic objects. (they are rather "quark like")
Whether the theory is idealist or materialist, nominalist or not, or any other
ism is left undecidable as that requires making that subjective choice. As
such the theory is neo-materialist, neo, idealist, neo-nominalist. I claim
that The Stoic logic and philosophy was of this kind.
> The absolute knowledge that you know nothing *assumes* more than what is
> contained within the axiom itself. It assumes existence, it assumes
> knowledge, and it assumes that there is something "out there" for you not to
> know anything about.
The duality is inescapable, but it is not sure that the something is "out
there" or "in here". This is maintained as an undecidable question (to within
a subjective choice). The generic entity is unqualified by "out there" or "in
here." It is generic.
> In my own (somewhat humble) opinion, the very fact
> that we can believe that we do not know anything for certain, presupposes a
> Truth (Telos) of possibility.
The choice is thus to presuppose a Truth of possibilities or not to
presuppose. As long as this "taking of sides" is never evaluated (left to
within a subjective choice one way or the other) then you can have no
objection.
This is the idea. To elaborate to complete satisfaction would take us off the
air I think.
> >This absolute knowledge
> >placed in opposition with absolute ignorance is seen as an embryonic
> >and *generic* form of Heisenburg's uncertainty principle. I manage to
> >get around this seemingly intractable situation by introducing
> >absolute relative types. The most elementary of the relative types is
> >the type of entity which has merely an attribute and the other type
> >of entity which is this attribute.
>
> Read any Leibnitz? Pirsig? The fact that you have two separate "entities"
> (I'll call them that to simplify for myself), implies a third one that
> "binds" them in some way. You run into a "infinite regression" (which may,
> in the end, be okay I guess) if you pick one as basic (particle vs.
> relativity or particle vs. accident) and if you do not pick one then you hit
> that pesky old dualism that runs you into the standard metaphysical problems
> Heidegger was trying to avoid.
Leibniz in detail and I appreciate. Pirsig nothing.
Certainly, if two entities are distinguishable then there must be a third
party involved in order to make such a determination decidable.. However,
using the gender construct and the subsequent system based on absolute
relative typing, the fundamental distinctions are all kept undecidable
(although but the differences decidable). The entities involved in the
fundamental difference relations are all indistinguishable. They are all
dyads.
Ultimately, one could say that the third element might be the composite of the
two monads of opposite gender. But the same can be said for each monad as
being the composite of two other monads of opposite gender. There is no
absolute hierarchy of parts and wholes. Undecidablity, rather than being a
curse, comes to the rescue again. This might sound rather Sophist, but it
takes time to assimilate and explain the method.
Very important point.
I'll skip the rest here as this is getting too long already.
Doug
Kind regards,
Doug Moore
Dr Douglas Moore
Computer Science Department voice: 61 3 9479 1142 (office)
La Trobe University, 61 3 9857 9964 (home)
Bundoora,3083 fax: 61 3 94793060
Australia email: doug@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
see THE NEW STOA page -Generic Science and Stoic Philosophy
http://www.cs.latrobe.edu.au/~doug/generic/generic.html
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
------------------
You have pin-pointed some of the key problems of this kind of
endeavour. I'll expand on a few of them.
On 23 Oct 95 at 11:36, William Lenco wrote:
[..]
The Starting Point Problem
====================
> >This means that the Starting Point is of a Socratic nature - all you know
>> with absolute certainty is that you don't know anything
> I dislike it when people attribute this to a Socratic or Platonic nature but
> know what you mean. Heidegger's critique of the Cartesian starting point,
> while not exactly analogus, points in the direction that this is a bad
> starting spot. {maybe it is not a bad place to start, but it is suspect).
You are quite justified in homing in on this one! As I read somewhere, every
philosophy is just a new definition or conception of the starting point. My
Socratic Starting Point statement was just a cheap way to get a complex
message across.
The problem is - how can one _formalise_ the Socratic Starting
Point notion? The fundamental objections you raise must be resolved in such a
formalism.
Formalising the Initial Duality
=====================
Choosing the starting point is not a problem as this is already a fait
accompli. The very act of theorising - like we are doing - implies this. The
immediate consequence of this foolish act is to deform what we are talking
about. There is no need to create a duality and there is no escape from
duality. The very act of starting to theorise, think, talk about it all has
created a duality. Theory divides from object, consciousness from reality
etc.. This is analogous to Heisenburg's uncertainty principle where the act of
measurement deforms that being measured.. Here, it is the act of theorising. .
The act of theorising is kind of "original sin" which deforms the inherent
unity of it all and introduces the first Point of View. The Spectator creates
the Spectacle or vice versa. It is a subjective Spectacle. This is a necessary
and inescapable "sin." . The only way of avoiding it is to engage in some kind
of deep mediation and seek sublime Oneness with the Cosmos. This might give
one a deep warm glow but can never lead to theory.
Having committed the "sin" it is necessary to make the necessary adjustments.
This can be achieved by guaranteeing that even though there is a difference
created in this original dichotomy, if this difference can be maintained as an
_indistingishable_ difference, then you won't be able to discern the "sin."
This leads to the basic generic principle of consciousness (or read,
substitute -> objective theory). Consciousness is characterised by its
inability to distinguish between the entities of consciousness and the
corresponding entities of reality. David Chalmers has referred to explaining
the relationship between consciousness and reality as the Hard Problem. In
generic science, the Hard Problem not treated as a problem but as a basic
system invariant. Consciousness must maintain at all costs the
indistinguishablity of the two sides of the equation whilst maintaining the
difference. If it fails to continually achieve this then we have a
consciousness suffering from a severe system integrity disorder. Consciousness
is thus obliged to ape reality - or is it reality that is aping consciousness?
The answer to this question must be maintained as forever undecidable.
The formalisation of the indistinguishablity of the difference is achieved by
gender - the most elementary and fundamental form of relative typing. The
(feminine) entity which _has_ an attribute is different but indistinguishable
from the (masculine) entity which _is_ this attribute. Given one, you can
never absolutely know which one. Using the gender construct the entities of
theory/consciousness can potentially be expressed as being different but
indistinguishable from the entities of theory-object/reality.
Formalising the Starting Point
=====================
Starting with an initial duality is inescapable, but which duality? Moreover,
which side of the duality do we start with?
These questions are answered by starting with any entity whatsoever. Sounds
vague. The formalisation of the concept?
In mathematical Category theory one can arrive at unique representations of
_mathematical_ entities.. The basic paradigm is that these representations are
"unique to within a choice of isomorphism " . In generic theory, this paradigm
is replaced by constructing representations of entities which are "unique to
within a subjective choice of any entity whatsoever." (No axioms are thus
needed to define what the hell an isomorphism is, for example) Instead of
being representations of mathematical entities, this leads to representations
of _generic_ entities which are unique to within a .....
What this means is that the theory -expressed in terms of its representations
- must be *starting point invariant*. In other words, no matter where you
start and what you start with, you always get the same (generic) theory.
Relativity theories rely on invariants. In the Special Theory in physics, the
invariant is the speed of light. In the absolute relativity theory of generic
theory, the invariant is the Starting Point. (I started with this and got
that...but what if I had started with that - the same theory should result)
This places draconian constraints on the system. Working within these
constraints I have been able to construct the first few of the elementary
generic objects. (they are rather "quark like")
Whether the theory is idealist or materialist, nominalist or not, or any other
ism is left undecidable as that requires making that subjective choice. As
such the theory is neo-materialist, neo, idealist, neo-nominalist. I claim
that The Stoic logic and philosophy was of this kind.
> The absolute knowledge that you know nothing *assumes* more than what is
> contained within the axiom itself. It assumes existence, it assumes
> knowledge, and it assumes that there is something "out there" for you not to
> know anything about.
The duality is inescapable, but it is not sure that the something is "out
there" or "in here". This is maintained as an undecidable question (to within
a subjective choice). The generic entity is unqualified by "out there" or "in
here." It is generic.
> In my own (somewhat humble) opinion, the very fact
> that we can believe that we do not know anything for certain, presupposes a
> Truth (Telos) of possibility.
The choice is thus to presuppose a Truth of possibilities or not to
presuppose. As long as this "taking of sides" is never evaluated (left to
within a subjective choice one way or the other) then you can have no
objection.
This is the idea. To elaborate to complete satisfaction would take us off the
air I think.
> >This absolute knowledge
> >placed in opposition with absolute ignorance is seen as an embryonic
> >and *generic* form of Heisenburg's uncertainty principle. I manage to
> >get around this seemingly intractable situation by introducing
> >absolute relative types. The most elementary of the relative types is
> >the type of entity which has merely an attribute and the other type
> >of entity which is this attribute.
>
> Read any Leibnitz? Pirsig? The fact that you have two separate "entities"
> (I'll call them that to simplify for myself), implies a third one that
> "binds" them in some way. You run into a "infinite regression" (which may,
> in the end, be okay I guess) if you pick one as basic (particle vs.
> relativity or particle vs. accident) and if you do not pick one then you hit
> that pesky old dualism that runs you into the standard metaphysical problems
> Heidegger was trying to avoid.
Leibniz in detail and I appreciate. Pirsig nothing.
Certainly, if two entities are distinguishable then there must be a third
party involved in order to make such a determination decidable.. However,
using the gender construct and the subsequent system based on absolute
relative typing, the fundamental distinctions are all kept undecidable
(although but the differences decidable). The entities involved in the
fundamental difference relations are all indistinguishable. They are all
dyads.
Ultimately, one could say that the third element might be the composite of the
two monads of opposite gender. But the same can be said for each monad as
being the composite of two other monads of opposite gender. There is no
absolute hierarchy of parts and wholes. Undecidablity, rather than being a
curse, comes to the rescue again. This might sound rather Sophist, but it
takes time to assimilate and explain the method.
Very important point.
I'll skip the rest here as this is getting too long already.
Doug
Kind regards,
Doug Moore
Dr Douglas Moore
Computer Science Department voice: 61 3 9479 1142 (office)
La Trobe University, 61 3 9857 9964 (home)
Bundoora,3083 fax: 61 3 94793060
Australia email: doug@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
see THE NEW STOA page -Generic Science and Stoic Philosophy
http://www.cs.latrobe.edu.au/~doug/generic/generic.html
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
------------------