Jonathan and Stefan,
Communicating with you two has been a most enjoyable experience. You have clarified certain things for me, and I hope I have done so for you. James Putnam has also been a delight to talk with.
Stefan,
of my conclusion, that "(self-attraction, self-awareness, and ability to act) will forever remain mysterious." you state:
"I would make here a distinction. I agree that our human logics has strong mechanical character. Maybe exactly that's the reason for why we humans cannot imagine/logical conclude that there could be intelligence without logics. Means, understanding without logics. Some understanding could really flow out of strong emotions (i would assume that subatomic particles have such emotional-like perceptions). If that's true, we could understand the mysteries you mentioned without logics, but by becoming one with it at some point of our evolution."
I do agree with you that through "becoming one with" we may understand the mysteries, but I don't think that this is properly physics, nor do I think we will be focussed on math at that point, so I do not venture that far in my essay. I have written of this in "Gene Man's World" and also in "The Atheist and the God Particle".
You also state: "I am very surprised that in your theory logics emerges out of the emergence of matter. That's in good corespondence with my own consciousness-concept. I think that time is also a consequence of the production of logics and matter."
I agree that the 'idea' of time, as a conceptual tool, arises from the logic and matter. Our conscious 'awareness' of time is always of 'Now', the eternal NOW.
Jonathan,
Thank you for your kind remarks. I agree fully that it's necessary to be comfortable with paradox. Thanks also for your remarks about Korzybski. I tend to stick to "the map and the territory" because everyone can grasp that, but I agree with you that
"It seems that what Korzybski was trying to get us to do is to transcend words entirely, and to work from a consciousness where we run the word machine - rather than having it drive our thoughts. But words do shape how we think."
This is stated so well, and is compatible with conscious awareness transcending the logic machinery, as opposed to simply being locked into a reflexive 'chattering machine' mode of existence.
I can understand the Platoist conception, and you are correct that it cannot be proved that math does not 'pre-exist' in some universe of ideal forms. It is a personal prejudice of mine to simply 'prefer' that the universe arise from "One thing", with no ifs, ands, or buts, or other dimensions, or forms, rules or laws. So that is my quest, but it's personal, not proved.
As my wife says, I want the universe to be a self-extracting ZIP file.
If I understand both of you correctly, you both find my theory somewhat compatible with your own ideas, and for this I am grateful.
By the way, I plan to post several comments on Terry Padden's essay later today. If you have not read his essay, I recommend it heartily. I hope that you enjoy my comments there.
Edwin Eugene Klingman