> Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 09:42:39 -0400
> From: Sodom <sodom@ma.ultranet.com>
> Organization: Tis Pootanis
> To: virus@lucifer.com
> Subject: Re: virus: Bequest
> Reply-to: virus@lucifer.com
> I too am VERY fond of the freedom meme, I think that so far, as you
> describe it, it may be my favorite. I also like your descripion of
> it, and its similarity to the anarchy meme, which is basically the
> freedom meme, minus the limitation of affecting the freedom of
> others. I also think that Capitalism and Democracy are preferable to
> most other systems so far exhibited (that come from the freedom
> meme), but show very serious flaws. In a democracy, it is too easy
> and common for small majority to oppress any minority. And
> Capitalism, though it has been very beneficial for me, leads to a
> type of human abuse that I do not like either. I would love to see a
> democracy that needs a 80% or so vote to make any law and a 30% or
> so to remove any law. I would liuke to see capitalism in which its
> main beneficiaries saw life as more important than profit. Then
> those two systems would be acceptable to me.
>
> Also, could you define "Godelianly" for me? I honestly dont know
> what that means.
>
> Sodom
> Bill Roh
>
> Kurt Godel authored the most seminal proof in mathematics. He
proved that any axiomatic system of sufficient complexity to be
recursive is necessarily either partially incorrect or
incomplete.Heres how he did it:
First, postulate axiomatic system A, comprised of all and only true
statements. Now, from the laws and structure of A, create statement
B, a recursive statement (it talks about itself). B says, in effect,
that "B is not a part of A". What has happened? If we include B in
A, then A contains at least one false statement, but if we exclude B
from A, then there is a true statement that A does not contain. The
bottom falls out; mathematics is revealed as a Zen koan. But WE are
B, neither seamlessly and unconsciously part of the world, nor so
Godlike self-aware and self-absorbed as to be completely bifurcated
from it. NEW PART BEGINS The mind/world system is neither a unity
nor a multiplicity (or even a duality), but a dynamic relational
system. The absolute and ideal limits of relational system are unity
(a mindless merger with world) and multiplicity (mind's complete
separation from, and therefore ignorance of world). In between these
two lies perspective (the domain of sensation, perception,
interpretation [hermeneutics], etc.). We are, at one and the same
time, not and not other than the world. NEW PART ENDS We inhabit an
ego-epistemology trapped between egoless awareness of nothing and
egoless awareness of all. The snake bites his tail, but cannot
swallow his own head. In Ideal terms, there would be an absolute
evolution of consciousness; 1->2->infinity. The proof: If one is
self-aware, one is conscious of the fact (if 2 then 3). But if one
is aware of one's own self-consciousness, one must know of this
awareness, too ( if 3 then 4), and in general, if N then N+1.
However, although the size and complsxity of the human synapse-neuron
system transcends the Godelian limit (beyond which recursivity and
self-reflection occurs), in practical terms, since the human brain is
not of infinite complexity, we may inhabit a finite (although
indefinite) number of levels of abstraction, beyond which we become
lost in sterile irrelevancy. The best presentation of the open-ended
system of human cognition has been put forth by Jean Piaget. On
another matter, one innovation peculiar to democracy is its state of
continual evolution, which precludes revolution. Utopia is a
never-to-be-obtained ideal limit; thus there will always be some
dissatisfaction with our government and its laws. However, before
this dissatisfaction can reach the dystopic level necessary for
revolution, lawmakers, motivated by election considerations, revise
the offebding laws. Like human individuals, participatour democracy
is an open-ended, reflexive, evolutionary and autopoetic system. I
hope this has helped to answer your questions and to clarify my
points further. Sincerely, Joe Dees
>
> > > Subject: virus: Bequest
> > > Date: Thu, 21 May 98 18:11:35 -0400
> > > From: "Wade T. Smith" <morbius@channel1.com>
> > > To: <virus@lucifer.com>
> > > Reply-to: virus@lucifer.com
> >
> > > >So the meme you are worried about is not anti-butchery, or
> > > >anti-communist, it is the [we-are-the-chosen-people] meme -
> > > >[insert
> > > cult/country/religion]
> > > >are right, all others are by default, wrong. Thats the best
> > > >thing about being
> > > an
> > > >[insert cult/country/religion], you are always on the morally
> > > >correct side -
> > > YES!
> > >
> > > Yes?
> > >
> > > And, Bill, you _really_ should be living in Cambridge....
> > >
> > > ;-)
> > > The nice thing about a "freedom meme" is its anti-dogmatic,
> > > almost
> > scientfically non-judgmental, morally/ethically neutral
> > character.
> > It doesn't prescribe what you must do with your freedom or
> > proscribe what you mustn't do with it (this is tautologically the
> > nature of freedom, by definition), it merely states that each
> > individual should have all freedoms that do not interfere with the
> > same freedoms exercised by anyone else, and where the inevitable
> > conflicts occur, they should be resolved by equal and proportional
> > compromise. It wears no altruistic blinders, however; the reason
> > it is embraced is the benefit it grants immediately to the
> > individual, and only subsequently (and mediately) to the society.
> > It is a formal meme, with negligible content, and is well suited
> > to permeate the emergently self-conscious, recursive psyche, which
> > is programmed to transcend its programming; in other words,
> > programmed for freedom. I am not worried about the freedom meme -
> > I LIKE it, and the evolutionarily creative diversity of thought
> > and action it fosters. It tolerates everything - except
> > intolerance, and makes everyone slaves - to their own free wills
> > and choices (though it insists on personal responsibility for
> > their consequences, which is fine with me). Like a free market
> > and laissez-faire economics, it is a synthesis of existentialism
> > and ethical egotism, and works best (though not perfectly, or even
> > perfectibly - the nature of open-ended, recursive systems is to be
> > Godelianly imperfect and incomplete) hand-in-glove with
> > participatory democracy.
> > >
> > > *****************
> > > Wade T. Smith
> > > morbius@channel1.com | "There ain't nothin' you
> > > wade_smith@harvard.edu | shouldn't do to a god."
> > > morbius@cyberwarped.com |
> > > ******* http://www.channel1.com/users/morbius/ *******
> > >
>
>
>