On 25 Oct 95 at 13:23, William Lenco wrote:
> I agree that it is convincing and would almost have to except
>it ...
>but this does not mean that I have to accept any particular
>starting point as anything other than a "pragmatic" necessity
>(and quite possible a pragmatic advantage if it leads to a more
>clear understanding of the "world").
The particular starting point is qualified by being
particular. The Starting Point I'm talking about has no
such qualificatio.. The winning ticket in the lottery
barrel is any ticket whatsoever, but only before the draw.
This is the definition of a non-rigged lottery. The winning
ticket that wins the lottery is after the draw and not the
same entity as the former.
Hinduism offers some delightful metaphors of this concept
with Krishna and his mistress Lakshmi, the chosen one
amongst all the shepherdesses on the plain and much more
desirable than his official wife -the choice consummated.
But Lakshmi is doomed to eternal frustration as she
phantasms and perfumes herself waiting for her lover who
never turns up. Krishna, to me is the icon of the Lord of
Choice - a kind of Cupid figure but of much greater statue.
In the Bhavagad-Gita, it is Arujana who must fire the
arrow. Krishna is above the consummated choice. He is the
expert of Non-Evaluation, the onlt way of avoiding error.
> Unfortunately I find myself "pinched persipiringly in the
> epistemological dilemma of the skeptic, unable to accept
>solutions to problems .. [I am] ... unwilling to dismiss as
>unsolveable." {Heller, Catch-22}
In my view, the Sceptic position is pretty good.. Unlike
modern foramalsims where the formalisation is put in place
before you even begin, the Sceptics had there formalisation
on the other side of the Starting Point as something to be
achieved. The downside, I guess, is what you are talking
about. Just like classical formalisation get caught in an
infinite regression in search of the First meta-principle
of it all, the Sceptic gets caught in the same process but
going in the opposite direction -infinite progression. The
sceptic has at least as much faith in the ultimate
formalism as the scientists an finds its equally as
allusive. The big plus for the sceptic view is that at
least it recognises that the future is more of an unknown
than the past. In this everyday sense, the classical
formalisations are rather counter-intuitive as the future
is defined by just running it all on a Turing Machine.
Choosing between a classical formalist position and that of
the sceptic is difficult and probably a choice one should
better choose not to take. After all, they are not in
complete disagreement about the Starting point. One says
that the allusive formalisation should precede it, the
other says that the formalisation is on the other side. It
is the same Starting Point..Both agree that the Starting
Point seems to be defined as the intermediary between the
allusive pan ultimate formalisation and what its is meant
to explain. The disagreement is simply based on polarity
and few subjective factors such as the respective domains
of applicability, utility, pertinence and career
opportunities...
Stated this way the Starting Point seems to resemble moving
goal posts. Moreover, any progress made after the Starting
Point, never seems to get any closer to its ultimate
objective, no mater which view one takes. In fact one could
even say that is something from which you never stray from
very far, if at all. This would indicate that the best
place to start which is as good as any is where you are
now. In the big picture it won't differ too much from where
you will be. From a strictly objective, relativistic point
of view, there is no difference to where you are or will
be. In fact, we are all in this same generic boat. (I'm
waxing poetical here)
Looking at this two way conveyor belt, with a golden
principle at one end and a platinum at the other, the
question becomes not one of where to start but where to get
on. This doesn't really seem to matter much. This is why I
argue that the Starting Point should be any where
whatsoever. In this way we might get a handle on the
generic boat. It also fits in to (potentially only) the
most powerful mathematical tool of all Category Theory
(without the categories or axioms though - only the arrows
and the constructionism!)
> As such I have resigned myself to picking out problems in
> philosophies and never coming up with a better solution (I am
>unconvinced by my own ideas when I do this). In the end, I
>still have to get by in the world.
>That is one reason why I liked Heidegger so much. The problems
>I saw him running into were not as evident in his starting
>points as they were near the end of "Being and Time".
But which end?
>>consciousness suffering from a severe system integrity
>>disorder. >>Consciousness is thus obliged to ape reality - or
>> is it reality that is aping consciousness?
>From my limited knowledge of Quantum and such I guess science
>would point >towards the latter being true at this point (no
>matter how greatly this >effects how we "see" the world).
I shouldn't have used the word 'aping'. It's too cheap and
nasty. My generic theory approach is to rufuse to take
sides on these issues, on any issue. Everthing is left
unevaluated "to within a subjective choice."
[snip ..my stuff]
> Two sides of the same coin?
> See my other post. It's a weird coin.
> Okay, I may be waaaay out of my league here but doesn't the
>fact that you can choose some starting point at all (A "That"
>or a "this") mean that there is already a whole mess of stuff
>that is assumed in your starting point?
As above, if one does actually consumate the choice then
you are done like a dinner. Even choosing definitievly not
to choose is a choice. My stuff is a continual carrying
through of the _unevalated_ choice. In Computer Science, we
call it "late binding" and a lot of AI langauges use it. In
generic theory , as in category theory[excpet for its
horrible foundation], nothing is ever bound. In my case,
everthing is defined to within a subjective choice which is
never consumated or "bound." It is now a widely used
concept and distinuishes a lot of the old from the new.
[....]
> rather large hurdle that comes along with this (which is why I
>do not see Grand Unification Theory getting realized very
>soon).
I would go further and say that it never will be realised.
There will never be a satisfactory TOE (Theory of
Everything) as everthing is a mere abstraction. However, I
maintain that there are some entities which are more
generic than other entities (less determined and qualified
with attributes). Quarks are more genric that many other
entities as they don't seem to have any disceranble
structure. However, they are qualifed by having physical
properties such as mass. In search of the most generic,
there is no infinite regression (in one sense) in that it
must be the entity devoid of any qualifications, or
specificity except to have the specifcity of having none. I
argue that the project of trying to pin down and formalise
such an absolutely generic entity are so draconina that
you end up with a solution which in turn demands a firther
solution to iron out the secondary conflicts and so on it
goes. In the process of carrying out such reasoning one can
arrive at the structure of generic entities of increasing
specifcity and determination and so reverse engineer the
whole caboodle. However, this must not be an idle claim and
must be accompanied by concrete results. I believe that my
first few parers on the question start to achieve this.
Such an approach does bring about a unification of a kind, so I'm
playing with words here. But I really detest the word 'unification'
as it infers that you start off with a mess and try and clean it up.
This is certainly the case in the classical scicnes, but it was them
that created the mess in the first place.
>
>No idealogy (like science) with as much history as modern
>science has, is going to be willing to let go of very
> workable basic premises and "axioms" in order to build a
>bridge that will get them from where they are (stuff) to what
>they finally see (room). So they are stuck trying to explain
>"room" using "stuff" which many of them
> realize will never work.
I'm starting to experience this ideological resistance, but
there are some who are open to new approaches. The big
problem is that they still expect it to be still "more of
the same." The problem lies in the very roots of their
raltionality and - even worse - of their (our) ethnique
culture.. Morevoer, few have the necessary cultrual
baggage to follow the apparent idocyncrcies of what is
essentailly impregnated with Eastern ideas. (This is why I
enjoy communicating with you and other in this list) How to
combine the Western tradtion of rigour and formalisation
with the profondeur of Eastern thought? How to get people
to understand it if you are unfortunate enough to actuall
start to arrive there!
> How does this realte to your very complex (and from
>what I can tell - extremely interesting, theory)? Well, I am
>not quite sure. Years of studying arguments tells me that it
>does but I can not quite reach across the gap of my own low
>understanding of math and such. What I would say is that your
>dualism already encompasses many of the *cosmic* rules and
>regulations that it will be trying to explain. Similarly,
>modern sciences positionm of starting with stuff already
>includes and understanding of "room" and, as such, can never
>adequately explain "room" using its own axioms and principles
>(the fact that it starts with an understanding of what
> "room" I see as considerably more important than the fact that
>it starts with an understanding of what "stuff" is as well).
> Perhaps James (and modern science) is right. Maybe we
>should not even bother worrying about whether we can get there
>from here. Hell Bradley has already told us that the Absolute
>is impossible to describe. Let's just drop it.
Let's just formalise what he said and show that he is
right. If he is absolutely right then it should be
possible. (liar's paradox etc.. but that's what it is all
about)
> >This is the idea. To elaborate to complete satisfaction would
>> take us off the air I think.
> Too true, although I would love to continue this.
we have.
Doug
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 ---
------------------
> I agree that it is convincing and would almost have to except
>it ...
>but this does not mean that I have to accept any particular
>starting point as anything other than a "pragmatic" necessity
>(and quite possible a pragmatic advantage if it leads to a more
>clear understanding of the "world").
The particular starting point is qualified by being
particular. The Starting Point I'm talking about has no
such qualificatio.. The winning ticket in the lottery
barrel is any ticket whatsoever, but only before the draw.
This is the definition of a non-rigged lottery. The winning
ticket that wins the lottery is after the draw and not the
same entity as the former.
Hinduism offers some delightful metaphors of this concept
with Krishna and his mistress Lakshmi, the chosen one
amongst all the shepherdesses on the plain and much more
desirable than his official wife -the choice consummated.
But Lakshmi is doomed to eternal frustration as she
phantasms and perfumes herself waiting for her lover who
never turns up. Krishna, to me is the icon of the Lord of
Choice - a kind of Cupid figure but of much greater statue.
In the Bhavagad-Gita, it is Arujana who must fire the
arrow. Krishna is above the consummated choice. He is the
expert of Non-Evaluation, the onlt way of avoiding error.
> Unfortunately I find myself "pinched persipiringly in the
> epistemological dilemma of the skeptic, unable to accept
>solutions to problems .. [I am] ... unwilling to dismiss as
>unsolveable." {Heller, Catch-22}
In my view, the Sceptic position is pretty good.. Unlike
modern foramalsims where the formalisation is put in place
before you even begin, the Sceptics had there formalisation
on the other side of the Starting Point as something to be
achieved. The downside, I guess, is what you are talking
about. Just like classical formalisation get caught in an
infinite regression in search of the First meta-principle
of it all, the Sceptic gets caught in the same process but
going in the opposite direction -infinite progression. The
sceptic has at least as much faith in the ultimate
formalism as the scientists an finds its equally as
allusive. The big plus for the sceptic view is that at
least it recognises that the future is more of an unknown
than the past. In this everyday sense, the classical
formalisations are rather counter-intuitive as the future
is defined by just running it all on a Turing Machine.
Choosing between a classical formalist position and that of
the sceptic is difficult and probably a choice one should
better choose not to take. After all, they are not in
complete disagreement about the Starting point. One says
that the allusive formalisation should precede it, the
other says that the formalisation is on the other side. It
is the same Starting Point..Both agree that the Starting
Point seems to be defined as the intermediary between the
allusive pan ultimate formalisation and what its is meant
to explain. The disagreement is simply based on polarity
and few subjective factors such as the respective domains
of applicability, utility, pertinence and career
opportunities...
Stated this way the Starting Point seems to resemble moving
goal posts. Moreover, any progress made after the Starting
Point, never seems to get any closer to its ultimate
objective, no mater which view one takes. In fact one could
even say that is something from which you never stray from
very far, if at all. This would indicate that the best
place to start which is as good as any is where you are
now. In the big picture it won't differ too much from where
you will be. From a strictly objective, relativistic point
of view, there is no difference to where you are or will
be. In fact, we are all in this same generic boat. (I'm
waxing poetical here)
Looking at this two way conveyor belt, with a golden
principle at one end and a platinum at the other, the
question becomes not one of where to start but where to get
on. This doesn't really seem to matter much. This is why I
argue that the Starting Point should be any where
whatsoever. In this way we might get a handle on the
generic boat. It also fits in to (potentially only) the
most powerful mathematical tool of all Category Theory
(without the categories or axioms though - only the arrows
and the constructionism!)
> As such I have resigned myself to picking out problems in
> philosophies and never coming up with a better solution (I am
>unconvinced by my own ideas when I do this). In the end, I
>still have to get by in the world.
>That is one reason why I liked Heidegger so much. The problems
>I saw him running into were not as evident in his starting
>points as they were near the end of "Being and Time".
But which end?
>>consciousness suffering from a severe system integrity
>>disorder. >>Consciousness is thus obliged to ape reality - or
>> is it reality that is aping consciousness?
>From my limited knowledge of Quantum and such I guess science
>would point >towards the latter being true at this point (no
>matter how greatly this >effects how we "see" the world).
I shouldn't have used the word 'aping'. It's too cheap and
nasty. My generic theory approach is to rufuse to take
sides on these issues, on any issue. Everthing is left
unevaluated "to within a subjective choice."
[snip ..my stuff]
> Two sides of the same coin?
> See my other post. It's a weird coin.
> Okay, I may be waaaay out of my league here but doesn't the
>fact that you can choose some starting point at all (A "That"
>or a "this") mean that there is already a whole mess of stuff
>that is assumed in your starting point?
As above, if one does actually consumate the choice then
you are done like a dinner. Even choosing definitievly not
to choose is a choice. My stuff is a continual carrying
through of the _unevalated_ choice. In Computer Science, we
call it "late binding" and a lot of AI langauges use it. In
generic theory , as in category theory[excpet for its
horrible foundation], nothing is ever bound. In my case,
everthing is defined to within a subjective choice which is
never consumated or "bound." It is now a widely used
concept and distinuishes a lot of the old from the new.
[....]
> rather large hurdle that comes along with this (which is why I
>do not see Grand Unification Theory getting realized very
>soon).
I would go further and say that it never will be realised.
There will never be a satisfactory TOE (Theory of
Everything) as everthing is a mere abstraction. However, I
maintain that there are some entities which are more
generic than other entities (less determined and qualified
with attributes). Quarks are more genric that many other
entities as they don't seem to have any disceranble
structure. However, they are qualifed by having physical
properties such as mass. In search of the most generic,
there is no infinite regression (in one sense) in that it
must be the entity devoid of any qualifications, or
specificity except to have the specifcity of having none. I
argue that the project of trying to pin down and formalise
such an absolutely generic entity are so draconina that
you end up with a solution which in turn demands a firther
solution to iron out the secondary conflicts and so on it
goes. In the process of carrying out such reasoning one can
arrive at the structure of generic entities of increasing
specifcity and determination and so reverse engineer the
whole caboodle. However, this must not be an idle claim and
must be accompanied by concrete results. I believe that my
first few parers on the question start to achieve this.
Such an approach does bring about a unification of a kind, so I'm
playing with words here. But I really detest the word 'unification'
as it infers that you start off with a mess and try and clean it up.
This is certainly the case in the classical scicnes, but it was them
that created the mess in the first place.
>
>No idealogy (like science) with as much history as modern
>science has, is going to be willing to let go of very
> workable basic premises and "axioms" in order to build a
>bridge that will get them from where they are (stuff) to what
>they finally see (room). So they are stuck trying to explain
>"room" using "stuff" which many of them
> realize will never work.
I'm starting to experience this ideological resistance, but
there are some who are open to new approaches. The big
problem is that they still expect it to be still "more of
the same." The problem lies in the very roots of their
raltionality and - even worse - of their (our) ethnique
culture.. Morevoer, few have the necessary cultrual
baggage to follow the apparent idocyncrcies of what is
essentailly impregnated with Eastern ideas. (This is why I
enjoy communicating with you and other in this list) How to
combine the Western tradtion of rigour and formalisation
with the profondeur of Eastern thought? How to get people
to understand it if you are unfortunate enough to actuall
start to arrive there!
> How does this realte to your very complex (and from
>what I can tell - extremely interesting, theory)? Well, I am
>not quite sure. Years of studying arguments tells me that it
>does but I can not quite reach across the gap of my own low
>understanding of math and such. What I would say is that your
>dualism already encompasses many of the *cosmic* rules and
>regulations that it will be trying to explain. Similarly,
>modern sciences positionm of starting with stuff already
>includes and understanding of "room" and, as such, can never
>adequately explain "room" using its own axioms and principles
>(the fact that it starts with an understanding of what
> "room" I see as considerably more important than the fact that
>it starts with an understanding of what "stuff" is as well).
> Perhaps James (and modern science) is right. Maybe we
>should not even bother worrying about whether we can get there
>from here. Hell Bradley has already told us that the Absolute
>is impossible to describe. Let's just drop it.
Let's just formalise what he said and show that he is
right. If he is absolutely right then it should be
possible. (liar's paradox etc.. but that's what it is all
about)
> >This is the idea. To elaborate to complete satisfaction would
>> take us off the air I think.
> Too true, although I would love to continue this.
we have.
Doug
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 ---
------------------