From: Scott Roberts (jse885@localnet.com)
Date: Fri Mar 04 2005 - 18:04:41 GMT
Max,
Max said:
Would it be correct to state that cold is static and hot is its negation or
flux?
Scott:
Why on earth would you try to put hot and cold into a framework of static
and flux? I only mentioned the opposites "hot and cold" in my post to Platt
as an example of opposites that do NOT cause any sort of logical problem.
They are areas in the temperature spectrum that a person will judge as such.
The logical problems come up when one is in a situation of saying "because
it is X, it is not-X", and "hot and cold" or colors do not fit this schema.
Where I see contradictory identity arising is when one speaks of *awareness*
of stasis or of flux. Stasis and flux in themselves are just another pair of
opposite properties: is the train at rest or is it moving? No problem
answering one way or another. There is a problem when one asks if awareness
is static or in motion when it observes motion.
Max said:
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.
This is why I believe that stasis is negated my ultimate movement and that
flux exists on territory between.
Scott:
So are you hypothesing that there is a real world of static entities? And
then flux comes along to negotiate between them? Apparently not, since below
you talk of static entities being a product of theory. See below
Scott said:
"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?"
Max said:
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?
Scott:
I would say it is tautological. You are only renaming. What I am objecting
to (in general in this forum) is statements like " any true constant is
theoretical, perhaps an illusion". This presupposes some non-theoretical
purely dynamic world in which theory comes along and makes static things out
of it. So my question is: how did theory come into being?
Max said:
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.
Scott:
Since you said above that by "flux" you mean the negotiation between static
entities, I would say that in this you are a victim of the second horn of
the tetralemma "one cannot say it is flux". A synthesis of flux and stasis
would be the third horn, which is also to be rejected.
- Scott
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 : Fri Mar 04 2005 - 18:09:04 GMT