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

[Alan Sondheim <sondheim@panix.com>]

I think, however, that ontologically, Saul is correct. One doesn't
'escape' the mathematical universe; in fact an infinite axiomatic set
would do, but would be messy as hell. Mathesis remains within mathesis -
although I have a sneaking suspicion that mathesis and the physical real
are intimately connected.

In any case, I think the issue is still more or less true as given.
There's also the problem of "judged" on its own terms - this doesn't
necessarily mean proven, of course.

Finally, and this plays directly into vr issues, where are _we_? What
worlds are 'normally' ours?

Some books that I've found useful by the way - Drew Leder, The Absent
Body, and the works of Rom Harre and Alphonso Lingis.

Alan


On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, Henry Warwick wrote:

> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
>

http://www.asondheim.org/ http://www.asondheim.org/portal/.nikuko
http://www.anu.edu.au/english/internet_txt
Trace projects http://trace.ntu.ac.uk/writers/sondheim/index.htm
finger sondheim@panix.com