Speaking of Gödel, and judging from the self-referential nature of meta-ideation (ooh, I like that term), I'm pretty sure I'm going to need to grok him sooner or later. Recommended course of study from a mathematical perspective?
if you mean to grok the actual proof, it's a bit beyond your grasp for now, young grasshopper. focus elsewhere -- it's quite a long bit of very esoteric math.
Journey of a thousand miles, first step, and all that rubbish. I've got the proof itself, incidentally. Same edition you link. It's on the "will one day pile". On your recommendation I think I'll reprioritize Hofstadter above the once-again-unfinished Illuminatus!.
Is this the PM I'm looking for, or is that only the first volume? Amazon isn't incredibly clear on that point.
you're a horrible person. finish this! for chrissakes, it's one of the most important books i've ever read -- far more so than anything else here listed.
Is this the PM I'm looking for, yeah, it's the abridged first volume (of 3). you won't find all 3 for less than $350 on any major vendor except transiently
( ... )
do you really, really want to get into this kind of arcane shit?
*shrug* As long as I'm claiming to use ideas about ideas and other such silliness, I figure I might as well acquire a deep grasp of what it is I'm actually doing and the inherent implications of those approaches. This led me to Gödel, which led me to Whitehead and Russell. *shrug* Perhaps an applied understanding is all that I need in this instance.
I'm in the habit of mistrusting drugs. Possibly a bad habit of mine. I certainly can't justify it.
In any case, I have a strong feeling that I'm thinking too much about the dichotomy, thus unfairly stressing the ideational far more than the experiential. There's a post in that waiting to happen; I'll queue it up.
the goal is to unify; that's your third eye or dhyāna as Sri Krishna called it. The finest method I've found thus far is math + drugs.
esemplastic always
Reply
Reply
Reply
if you want to understand the value of the proof, and much else besides, just read hofstadter's magnum opus. reading whitehead and russell's principia mathematica should be a milestone before the 1936 proof regarding it. the latter is, however, a nice addition to your "will one day read" pile in this $6.95 edition: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0486669807/qid=1134511910/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/103-4989604-1061441?n=507846&s=books&v=glance
Reply
Is this the PM I'm looking for, or is that only the first volume? Amazon isn't incredibly clear on that point.
Reply
you're a horrible person. finish this! for chrissakes, it's one of the most important books i've ever read -- far more so than anything else here listed.
Is this the PM I'm looking for, yeah, it's the abridged first volume (of 3). you won't find all 3 for less than $350 on any major vendor except transiently ( ... )
Reply
Seriously? I can't imagine why.
do you really, really want to get into this kind of arcane shit?
*shrug* As long as I'm claiming to use ideas about ideas and other such silliness, I figure I might as well acquire a deep grasp of what it is I'm actually doing and the inherent implications of those approaches. This led me to Gödel, which led me to Whitehead and Russell. *shrug* Perhaps an applied understanding is all that I need in this instance.
Reply
In any case, I have a strong feeling that I'm thinking too much about the dichotomy, thus unfairly stressing the ideational far more than the experiential. There's a post in that waiting to happen; I'll queue it up.
Reply
Leave a comment