From: Scott Roberts (jse885@localnet.com)
Date: Tue Mar 01 2005 - 00:15:02 GMT
Max,
It seems to me that to use the word "flux" as the synthesis of "stasis" and
"complete movement (or whatever negates stasis in binary opposition)" is a
little strange, since "flux" is the negation of stasis. So is becoming.
Hence, I think you fail to get a synthesis, especially since at the end you
say
"Instead, every "thing" is in flux, unique and new at every moment. I
would say that every "thing" is becoming"
Why is "thing" in scare quotes, but "flux" is not? Are you saying that
thingness is an illusion? Then you haven't synthesized, but have chosen one
horn of the dilemma, which leaves it open to my objection: what stays
constant so that awareness of flux is possible? What makes the illusion
happen?
But anyway, I deny that there can be a synthesis. To put it in the words of
the Buddhist tetralemma,
One cannot say that things exist
One cannot say that things do not exist (all is flux)
One cannot say that things both exist and do not exist
One cannot say that things neither exist nor do not exist
That denial of the possibility of synthesis is the difference between
Nishida's logic of contradictory identity and Hegel's dialectical logic.
- Scott
----- Original Message -----
From: "max demian" <oikoumenist@hotmail.com>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2005 1:35 PM
Subject: RE: MD Contradictions
Howdy,
I wanted to lend my two cents. It seems like this discussion tends to
revolve around binary opposites. Scott says, "that two opposite words, like
hot and cold, are defined by each not being the other." This is essential
binary thinking. From here it is a natural evolution to saying that 'Cat' is
defined by what is 'not cat.' There is a lot of this in this discussion:
Change and stasis, timelessness and time, etc. However, Scott shortly
mentions that the universe reality is always in a situation of flux. I
wanted draw attention to this seemingly contradicting idea that is not in
fact a contradiction. In this argument, the 'thesis' is stasis, while the
'antithesis' is complete movement (or whatever negates stasis in binary
opposition). Flux would then be 'synthesis' of these, bouncing between the
two. This is important. Ours is a universe of flux and to attempt to
describe the world in terms of stasis and its negation must, by necessity,
miss the point. Hegel asserted that 'is' and its negation 'is not' is
resolved in 'becoming'. I would interject, in regard to MoQ, that 'is' and
'is not' are static while 'becoming' is dynamic. 'Becoming' is in a constant
state of flux, composing dynamic quality. It makes no sense to speak of
things in terms of static quality since everything is constantly in motion.
In this framework, one cannot speak of "things" (noun) but of "becoming"
(verb). Instead, every "thing" is in flux, unique and new at every moment. I
would say that every "thing" is becoming. This is why I wanted to draw more
attention and concentration to the idea of flux. It seems important to this
discussion.
Thanks, Max
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Mar 01 2005 - 00:18:22 GMT