> >You see, once an idea is formalised like this, it gets frozen.
> >Institutionalised. It and loses a lot of its power.
>
> Does it lose its potency? I think not. Russell's Paradox and Goedel's
> theorem are known but still define the limits of mathematics.
Ack! Yes, but...
The entire point is that Illumination is non-verbal concept. Put it into words and it vanishes. Were it otherwise, the riddlers could just say something like "Hey guys, Chaos can be cool, if you just dig the big picture, man".
The riddles are a way of communicating an idea that is too, I don't know, profound, to be adequately expressed linguistically. The zen koans are a case in point; they hint at an idea that is too deep to be expressed in words. According to Jung, the alchemists were up to something similar with using their symbolism as a metaphor for a spiritual transmutation, rather than a literal one. It's like charades, except that charades involves expressing a verbal concept through a non verbal medium, and Nysalor riddles seek to express a non verbal concept through a verbal medium.
Mathematics works in a similar manner, at least Roger Penrose thinks so. In _The Emperor's New Mind_ he suggests that the underlying ideas of mathematics are beyond verbal expression, and that the remarkable thing is that mathematicians can hold a common idea while understanding it in different ways. Goedel's theorem itself is not (I think) expressable in language. You can describe the results: "No formal system of mathematics can be both complete and consistent". "There are some truths that cannot be expressed within the frame of referenc to which they apply". But Goedel's theorem is deeper than that. Understanding the theorem requires knowing _why_ this is true, and this is something that is not easily expressed in English.
From this perspective, we can look at Nysalor riddles, zen koans, alchemical symbolism, mathematical notation and even the parables of Christ as examples of the same thing: They are ways of sidestepping Goedel. After all, Goedel allows for things that are true, but which simply cannot be expressed in the media of expression - so it's no use criticising English as a means of expression - the problem will occur what ever the language. The riddle/koan/ parable/symbology approach attempts to lead the student to a deeper truth that could not be directly apprehended linguistically.
In cases where a deep concept is expressed linguistically, it is prone to distortion. Look at the religion: We have crusades, witch-hunts, torture and burning at the stake all in the name of the Prince of Peace. Look at the legal profession, or at least at that segment thereof who make a living by interpreting the law so that it acts contrary to the intention of the legislators. Or look at the bureaucrats ... hmm, that's where we came in.
In any event, it's not the medium that's important, it's the indirection of the attempt. The point of a zen koan is not in knowing the answer, it's in the hours spent wracking your brain trying to think of an answer to apparently nonsensical question: What is the difference between a duck?
> It's not a question of Wildness IMO. One can be absolutely clear-
> sighted in one's illumination and still be an diehard conservative
> (like most Kralori Mandarins) because it is the Best Possible Road
> from the Illuminates PoV.
Granted. And I'll be the first to admit that Illumination would be a positive asset to any bureaucrat. I just feel, intuitively (and therefore IMO), that any formalised Q&A style illumination is going to be inferior to the real thing.
All, IMO, of course.
Nick Fortune nick_at_nymar.demon.co.uk ===========================================================================+++ Sense Of Humour Down For Maintainence +++ Witticism Unavailable +++
Powered by hypermail