From: max demian (oikoumenist@hotmail.com)
Date: Wed Mar 02 2005 - 17:51:49 GMT
Hi Scott and All,
Thanks for your critique. I am still new to this discourse but hope to
contribute.
On one hand I can see that I did not make a very solid case for my own
definition of flux. I also think that I have gained clearer understanding of
your definition. On the other had I do have some questions.
Would it be correct to state that cold is static and hot is its negation or
flux? What then is warm? It would appear that in your model anything that is
not cold, warm or hot, is cold’s negation. If cold’s negation is anything
that is not cold, then would you say that warm and hot are essential the
same as flux, hot being the same as warm just warmer? Then I would assert
that warm and cold are also essentially the same, cold just being colder,
also in a situation of flux. Can hot and cold (as static) both be negated by
warm (dynamic)? In other words, if cold’s negation is hot then what is hot’s
negation? Or would both hot and cold be negated by flux? For me, cold and
hot would be thesis and antithesis with warm is synthesis of cold and hot.
Part of my problem with your definition of flux is that I understand flux as
a term that is in movement (dynamic) negotiating between opposites (both
static). But that is my understanding of flux. However, I would then assert
that because cold is static, than its negation is static as well and that
flux, as movement, couldn’t be considered static.
Further more,
I see a similar situation in the color spectrum. One could assert that in
your model white (static), as the absence of color, is negated by any color
at all (flux?). Black would then be the ultimate color containing all
colors. Then wouldn’t the negation of black be white? If both negate the
other, wouldn't white and black both be static? Wouldn’t blue be in a
dynamic roll negotiating between both black and white as not being
completely black or white?
This is why I believe that stasis is negated my ultimate movement and that
flux exists on territory between.
Scott: “Are you saying that thing-ness 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?”
In this I would first say that I am terribly uncertain of myself here. With
that in mind I will risk an answer anyway. In the context of the model I am
presenting, I would say that any true constant is theoretical, perhaps an
illusion. For example, cold is only truly cold in form because in reality
cold can never be so cold that it cannot get colder; same being true for
hot, black, and white. They can never be a true constant except
theoretically. In addition, I might reply that we are only aware of flux
because true constants exist only in form. In my model above I believe that
I have presented an argument for synthesis, thus, 'becoming' would be a
synthesis of 'Is' and 'isn't. Would it be plausible to say that constants
are static while flux is dynamic?
One last thing,
When you quote the Buddhist tetralemma, I am caused to think about the
Buddhist notion of the ‘middle path’? I would assert that the middle path is
synthesis, flux and dynamic. But I am only Buddhist some of the time.
Please understand that my discussion of flux is only to draw attention to
the term within the broader discussion of contradictions.
Max
>From: "Scott Roberts" <jse885@localnet.com>
>Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
>Subject: Re: MD Contradictions
>Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 17:15:02 -0700
>
>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
>
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
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 : Wed Mar 02 2005 - 18:22:05 GMT