Re: [-empyre-] the symbolic and the real

[Henry Warwick <henry.warwick@sbcglobal.net>]

The Voices in my Head tell me that on 10/9/03 7:18 AM, eugenie (temp) at
eugenies@onetel.net.uk wrote:

<snip my opacities>

> .... and all very self-evident, if you don't get too philosophical about it.
> maybe that's our (my/their) problem

Thanks. question: if it is so self-evident and obvious, then why isn't it
the standard operating procedure? Why do we labour under the illusions of
modernity and postmodernity, when we can simply state the obvious (The
Permanent Contemporary) and then use it to get on with life, and be the
wonderful creative delightful critturs we're supposed to be?

Oh well, luckily, that's not my problem this morning. I'll just note that it
seems that many people (self included too often) would rather solve big
complex issues of art and culture than feeding the poor or democratising the
workplace or reducing resource consumption or some other obvious and/or
worthy goal.

*sigh*


= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = =
To Mr Ostrow:

Saul Ostrow (SO) Statement:
> everything is always already true when judged by its own terms.

Kurt Goedel (KG) : within any axiomatic system sufficiently complex to
permit arithmetic there are propositions that cannot be proved or disproved
within the axioms (terms) of the system.


Hence: SO's statement "Everything is always already true when judged by its
own terms" is false, as there are things sufficiently complex that permit
internal contradictions and indeterminacy of truth states, per KG. Hence,
one cannot say EVERYTHING is always already true when judged by its own
terms. Also, the level of complexity where said indeterminacy comes into
play is very low. KG was able to do it with rather advanced algebra, but all
that did was examine the concept, "This statement is false", the
contradiction expressed in simple natural language...

Therefore one might consider that the contrary is likely to be more true:

Very little is always already true when judged by its own terms.

My opinion: That seems like a genuine conclusion, but I don't think that is
true either - I think it's all variable and dependent on initial conditions.
Since these conditions are outside our "event horizon" or "time cone" we can
only approximate them, hence the permanent failure of language -
civilisation's Achilles heel.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = =

To Mr Sondheim:

I have a lengthy reply to your questions. I'm writing it up. I'm presently
unemployed and running out of cash, so all my focus is on finding work that
pays a decent wage right now (which, in SF CA is not as easy as one might
think.) I'll try to finish it off later this afternoon.




HW

It is hard enough to follow one great vision in this land of darkness and
many changing shadows. It is in these shadows that people get lost.
- Black Elk