PUZZLED ELEPHANT TO CHRIS:
Yes, we are getting somewhere. But as to my puzzlement...
CHRIS WROTE:
> An EITHER/OR, and so an object perspective, favours discreteness and the
> particular in that the process of distinction making reflects the process of
> taking from the set [of?] all possible expressions one particular expression.
ELEPHANT:
As I've said before, I agree about there being a link between propositional
knowing and the engendering of discreteness. There is something profound
about our relationship with language to talk about here. However, a
discussion of this in terms of set theory will somewhat miss the point, I
suspect. A good example of this is your touching beleif that there is such
a thing as the set of all possible expressions.
I think that the idea that there can be a set of all possible expressions
contradicts what we were saying about dichotomies being the tools of our
creative intelligence: there is no "all" here, propositions and dichotomies
are a renewable resource, and there is no end to the refinement (or
debasement) of language that is possible. I am well aware that set theory
will allow us to think of infinite sets as totalities, but this is one good
reason for leaving set theory to the mathematicians and not using it in
Philosophical argument where contradiction (and the idea that there can be
an 'all' of an infinity is certainly a contradiction) is a proof of
falsehood.
But suppose we do grant a sum of the infinite, even then your suggestion
seems incompatible with MOQ. The idea that this infinte sum of possible
expressions exists now (the set is actual, even if the members are merely
possible), and that in making our judgements we choose one from this set,
goes directly against what Prisig and the whole of American Pragmatism tell
us about decision making. I was brought up short by an observant MOQer the
other day for saying that we "take" decisions the way you just did. No, we
"make" them, that's the whole point. In making them we have an eye on the
reality of the dynamic Quality which we are pursuing, and our judgements are
a kind of Vision of that Quality, they are not choices from some menu.
Still, interesting as your error here is, it still doesn't help me escape my
puzzlement about your association of the continuous and the general e.t.c.
Perhaps we will get on to that.
CHRIS WROTE:
> The set of all possible expressions includes (a) the particular object under
> consideration and (b) the notion of that object's negation.
ELEPHANT:
Sorry to be "VERY PRECISE", but objects are not negated, propositions are.
Again, the connection between judgements and objects is something I'm hoping
we can discuss - not just assume in passing.
CHRIS WROTE:
> IOW the set of all possible expressions contains BOTH A and ~A. This is
> identifiable as a BOTH/AND state and from a LOCAL perspective cannot exist
> 'at the same time'.
ELEPHANT:
Sorry, but "at the same time" *is* just what we mean by "local perspective":
there is no local perspective *towards* "at the same time". That an object
cannot be both F and ~F at the same time is something universally true.
Both interlocutors having a grip on that universal fact is what makes it
possible for one person to argue intelligably with another (on the rare
occasions when it is possible, that is). (I expect to get lots of replies on
this from people saying "Well actually, in this bit of well funded science
(insert list of papers) we accept contradictions all the time" - bully for
you. I'm sure you'll get along better that way, and we depend on your
technological confidence in so many ways. Just don't think to deeply when
you think your theories, if you value your sanity.)
CHRIS WROTE:
> The brain thus oscillates in trying to deal with
> BOTH/AND states where the seemingly static, and so 'unacceptable' BOTH/AND
> state is converted into a dynamic EITHER/OR.
ELEPHANT:
I have absolutely no idea what you might mean by brain ocscillation. Is
this a mental phenomenon? Moral cowardice? Biological/chemical reaction? I
am no less puzzled by the rest of this sentence. Why, in the context of
MOQ, would one say that logical conjunctions are any less dynamic that
disjunctions? Both are equally necessary for the dynamic construction of
the good. They don't correspond to functional or chronological stages in
our intellectual development. They are both indispensible tools in that
development, at every stage. (Imagine a man who went around saying "or" all
the time, inserting it between every noun and phrase: how dynamic would that
be? Alternatively, Consider someone who always used 'or' at four oclock in
the afternoon, no matter what the subject was).
CHRIS WROTE:
> Thus we end-up with A~AA~AA~AA~A etc etc IOW a neverending sequence, a
> continuity which is arbitrarily stopped.
ELEPHANT:
"Thus"? I'm sorry, I am completely lost. What does "A~AA~AA~AA~A" mean,
for heavens sake? Is this something to do with that brain Oscillation that
I didn't understand about the first time? If so, what is it to do with it?
What are you driving at?
In any case, if "A~AA~AA~AA~A" describes a series of logical states (the
formal shorthand suggests this), then it is patently a series of discrete
events. Discrete events which consititute a "neverending sequence" are not,
not by any stretch of the imagination, "a continuity". The whole meaning of
"continuity" is bound up in there being no joins, no gaps at which it could
be "abitrarily stoppod". It it is abitrarilly stopped, then it is a series,
not a continuum.
If this is how you have been understanding "continuity" all along, then I
fear my interest in your posts was quite mistaken.
CHRIS WROTE:
> BUT also note that, from an EITHER/OR context, this sequence of events is
> not precise, it is incapable of being held down as A OR ~A and as such is
> interpreted as more general, more lacking in precision, full of
> approximations. Thus we establish a link between continuity, the linking of
> things, and generality, the lack of precision where precision is interpreted
> as a point; something 'touchable'.
ELEPHANT:
I see. You think that the link between continuity and dichotomy making is
that continua can be interupted. I see. Ho hum. So all along you have
been completely misunderstanding all the important and interesting features
of continuity, right down to the plain meaning of the word "continuous",
while all the time claiming insistently (in CAPITAL letters) to have some
"VERY PRECISE" understanding which I should dilligently read and learn from.
You need to find a very patient Socrates.
Am I being harsh and hasty? Yes, perhaps I am. For beyond your weird
understanding of what continuity is, there is weird understanding of what
generality is, which dispite being a barrier to understanding might yet
redeem you. FYI "Generality" is in no way a lack of precision: the purpose
made word for that is "vagueness". "General" is a term to describe scope,
eg of words: particular (proper names), general (kind terms), universal
('Abstract' nouns, also names for the essential and ubiquitous, eg
'Quality'). But if by 'general' you mean to say 'vague', then perhaps I
could finally see the connection you draw between 'general (vague)' and
'continuous': for it makes good sense to say that there is an irreducible
vagueness in our ordered pictures of the world, because the continuum, being
continous, contains no precise descrete entities for those pictures to
approximate to. This is a valiant effort at interpretive charity, but it
has a problem. To wit: it involves exactly the commonsense understanding of
the continuous which your conception of continuity as "A~AA~AA~AA~A... a
neverending sequence" violates. I am forced to conclude, either that you
have two quite contradictory notions of continuity, or that you really don't
know what you mean. The fact that your understandings of both 'continuity'
and 'general' seem to depart from plain English rather supports the latter
view. All my attempts to make sense of you fail.
Yours remaining puzzled,
Elephant
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:54 BST