Re: origins of "x self" construals

Devi Jankowicz (
Tue, 31 Mar 98 20:21:15 +0100

Jim Legg writes,

>> >> a self
>> >>cannot model a self (it will run up against undecidable, i.e. logically
>> >>contradictory assertions, Godel etc.); but provided we allow a notion of
>> >>a metalanguage, a self can certainly model a "self" which, perhaps, your
>> >>analysis doesn't allow for?
>On the Internet TCP/IP overcomes this problem by providing a common gate
>through which self references are passed. Most designers choose an IP number
>which is exactly half way through the scale of numbers. The number
>and its close cousins are signals to the trolls in the local computer that
>it's their turn to do something.I think Godel was wimpesh in not wanting to
>offend his aristolian friends and did his work on contradictions before he
>knew too much about the non-linear self-referential equations that are the
>basis fractals and some say consciousness.

Didn't Godel write his stuff before the notion of fractals etc. became
Not sure if that makes him a "wimp".

But, as there _is_ by your account a way round this kind of
self-contradiction, and if it
_doesn't_ involve invoking a superordinate level of
language/representation, I'd be very grateful if you could say a bit
more. Could one use the self-referential property of the equations you
mention to draw analogies to the strategic-operational distinction I
mentioned in my e-mail?

Kind regards,