LS the four layers and Godel's theorum

glove (
Sat, 29 Aug 1998 04:38:48 +0100

hello Ant, Platt and LS

Ant wrote:

What Pirsig is getting at and is something I try to explain
on the LS from time to time is that he takes two different
viewpoints when looking at reality:
1. is the static quality, conceptual, world of everyday
affairs view while the other is
2. is the Dynamic Quality, non-conceptual, mystic view.

(snip) So to answer
Platt's question:
"As for separateness, those who say reality is an
inseparable continuum fall headlong into
self-contradiction. The thought and the language used to
make that assertion depend on separation. Are we to say
that symbolism, analysis, coherence and yes, metaphysics --
all of which are separation dependent -- are unreal?"

Yes, these concepts, as SEPARATE things, are unreal i.e.
these thoughts of separation and metaphysics are
dependent on a thinker, the thinker's experience, what
supports the thinker's existence, where the thinker came
from etc etc. This is one of the points about gravity in
Chapter Three of ZMM where Pirsig shows the absurdity of
thinking that a totally separate thought or law (such as
gravity) can exist outside sentinent experience. Though,
to be fair to Platt, abstractions and people for that
matter, can be relatively independent. It's their
(supposed) complete independence I have a problem with.

and from a correspondence with Doug Renselle...

Doug wrote:

Actually, Pirsig's MoQ says truth is contextual, there are unlimited
contexts, therefore there are unlimited truths (many truths). In MoQ
truth adheres Goedel's Incompleteness theorems. They tell us there is a
complementary interrelationship twixt consistency and completeness,
i.e., quanton(consistency,completeness). The larger the context, the
less consistent but more complete a system is. The smaller a context
the more consistent but less complete a system is. Most humankind
contexts are small enough to be acceptably consistent, but far from

my interpetation of Godels Theorum(s) in a MOQ context and how it fits into
the separation/non-separation paradox:

Ant, Doug and Platt and others, examining Godel's theorum, i see it can be
used to solve the paradox of separation/non-separation by exchanging two
little words...'provable' in favor of 'truth'. for example, i could make the
statement 'this sentence is not true', which is a paradox because it implies
its own negation while the negation implies the sentence. if i change the
sentence to 'this sentence is not provable' the paradox does not appear. let
G represent that sentence. insofar as the notion 'provable' goes, we assume
merely that no false sentence is provable. sentence G is unprovable and
true, while its negation is unprovable and false. the surprize i find in all
of this is the fact that we have to introduce a distinction between true and
provable, otherwise the paradox returns.

Godel proved that within any formal system adequate for number theory, there
exists an undecidable formula, that is, a formula that is not provable and
whos negation is not provable. furthermore, he proved that the consistency
of a formal system adequate for number theory cannot be proved within the
system, it requires a hierachial system, or many 'truths'. at the same time,
each 'higher' system used to prove a 'lower' system will also have within
its structure an undecidable formula.

we can put Godels theorums into a MOQ context by saying within our static,
everyday world, we cannot prove nor disprove anything without going outside
the static system into the Dynamic Quality system, which is in itself an
impossibility according to the MOQ. however, since we only use conceptional
reality agreements to build what we call our reality, we can perhaps change
those conceptual agreements to focus on the Dynamic Quality conceptual
viewpoint in a more expansive way, and get a more expansive view of the
universe. this is of course the value contained within the MOQ. however, it
also tells us that we will never be able to prove anything within our
everyday static view of the world. we can only move closer to the proof, so
to speak.

Godel showed us that we must give up the notion of truth in the favor of
many truths, which is itself very difficult to grasp due to our agreement
with truth being an absolute. a bit of background on Godel...his life was
filled with much depression and anxiety as he sought to absolutely verify
the truth of mathematics and yet was to find only the absence of any such
truth. apparently he had no means of dealing with what he had uncovered,
namely the Conceptual Unknown, or Dynamic Quality, and resorted to
metamathematics, which while more expansive, still didnt give Godel what he
was searching for, namely the truth.

best wishes to all,


homepage -
unsubscribe/queries -

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:39 CEST