From: Scott Roberts (jse885@cox.net)
Date: Thu Sep 15 2005 - 18:22:18 BST
Paul,
[Scott said]>....So while Magliola does not use the word
>'universal', the function of that word is there in the phrase "connected
>experience" and "dependently arisen".
Paul said: Then let's use those words instead.
Scott:
I think it is advisable to keep in mind that those (Magliola's) words are
substitutes for 'universal', in that it was only with the rise of nominalism
in the 14th century -- which is to say the start of trying to do without
universals -- that we started on the road to SOM and materialism. That is,
while not advocating a complete return to ancient and medieval belief, in
particular of those who believed in self-existent universals, I see the
nominalism of the interregnum as being the opposite error. So to use
'universal' helps remind us of the source of that error.
>Scott said:
...."Universal" and
>"particular" are just more words to be used to express a contradictory
>identity -- other equivalent words are "signified" and "signifier",
>"concept" and "speech act", "type" and "token", and so on. My point is that
>we can't do without some such pair if we want to philosophically examine
>the
>nature of reality.
Paul said: Again, I think dependently originated static patterns does the
trick
whenever you feel the need to bring in 'universal' and 'particular'.
Scott:
But I don't see particulars in SPOV, just universals, so how does it do the
trick?
>Scott said:
>I think in doing this you are reverting back to a conventional view, rather
>than keeping with the Nagarjuna/Derrida/Magliola position. That is, why
>speak of DQ as an originating factor at all? To me it leads to privileging
>DQ over SQ.
Paul said: That's why I put 'originating factor' in scare quotes, to do
away
with it once I'd used it to link to the Magliola quote. I think DQ is
privileged only to the extent that differance and sunyata are by Derrida and
Nagarjuna respectively.
Scott:
Ok. I can agree that a temporary privileging is useful for those who only
know of the conventional view. But it is harmful if used as a basis for
building a metaphysics.
>Scott said:
.....Nevertheless, it is the case that I think that a
>metaphysics can be written with CI as its center (or has been, albeit
>unsystematically -- see Barfield's "What Coleridge Thought"). What keeps
>it,
>as I see it, from being logocentric is that CI is not an originating factor
>since there is nothing separate from it that gets originated -- all reality
>"just is" CI doing its thing. If nothing else, it eliminates the SOM-like
>distinction between the metaphysics and something the metaphysics is
>"about". Instead, the metaphysics is an example of what it is about. The
>logic is the metaphysics.
Paul said: That's interesting, although there is still a distinction
between the
metaphysics and what the metaphysics is about in that it is, as you say, "an
example" and not, of course, the whole thing; kind of like a fractal of the
ubiquitous process of reality.
Scott:
I like that analogy.
- 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 : Thu Sep 15 2005 - 19:33:45 BST