From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Thu Sep 11 2003 - 19:02:55 BST
Hi
My dictionary says that nominalism is anti-realist,
which I am not. I like to call myself an ontological
phenomenologist. As Matt says, language is a part
of the reality of experience and its continual development
is an example of the dynamic quality of experience/reality.
I don't think there is something noumenal behind the phenomenal
that somehow escapes the continuing flux. What we call the world
is a subset of experience/reality, it is entirely conceptual. Of course,
we can say lots of interesting things about our world, and its
repeating patterns. Matt has talked a bit about mechanism. It seems to
me interesting how human consciousness seems to fade into a mechanistic/
dark/dreaming/forgetfull state. The more familiar you are with something,
the
easier it becomes, and it seems to drift into the unconscious. Perhaps the
human
body is only a form of mechanistic/repeating unconsciousness. What do you
think?
You said:Again, the L of CI points out that reality has not only the
character of
> being and becoming but is actually constituted by, so to speak, these two
> fighting each other. As one narrow sin on one, it turns out to be the
other.
> So,although one may start with the equation SQ=Being and DQ=Becoming, it
> will not stay stable, and one can also say that SQ=Becoming and DQ=Being,
> and so the ontological basis is not a basis. It shifts endlessly.
DM:sounds good to me, they have to play off each other to evolve, and
achieve the cosmos.
When I say into the subject, I am thinking of German Idealism which of
course was
wrapped up with European Romanticism very intimately. I am interested in
this L of CI.
It reminds me of Schelling. Coleridge, I have heard it said, is almost a
word for word
translation of Schelling, and also Heidegger is indebted to Schelling in
ways he has tried to
cover up. What are your sources for L of CI?
thanks
David Morey
>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott R" <jse885@spinn.net>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 4:38 AM
Subject: Re: MD Dealing with S/O pt 1
> David,
>
> > Don't understand why you think anti-essentialism=nominalism.
>
> Well, here are some definitions from my dictionary (New World):
>
> essentialism: a theory which stresses essences as opposed to existence.
> essence: a) the inward nature of anything, underlying its manifestations.
> True substance.
> b) the indispensible conceptual characteristics and relations of
> anything.
> universal: a metaphysical entity characterized by repeatability and
> unchanging nature through a series of changing relations, as substance.
> nominalism: A doctrine of the late middle ages that all universal or
> abstract terms are mere necessities of thought or conveniences of language
> and therefore exist as names only and have no general realities
> corresponding to them.
>
> So I see a nominalist as one who denies the reality of the concept of
words
> (its signified), this being an example of an essence. I don't see someone
> being one and not the other, but I could be misunderstanding, so please
fill
> me in on the difference.
>
> >
> > I am a realist as per essentialism but do not think we can reduce
> > reality down to any essential properties.
>
> If one removes "reduce" and "properties", doesn't this say that you are a
> realist as per essentialism, but do not think any essence is real? Again,
I
> plead confusion.
>
> >
> > But not an anti-realist as per a nominalist. Nor giving priority
> > to concrete particulars, as these are indistinguishable without
> > language
> >
> > I wish to avoid giving priority to either universals or particulars.
>
> Ok. Note that the logic of contradictory identity goes further in seeing
the
> two as contradictorily identical, which is to say that language is created
> by their conflict.
>
> >
> > Reality=experience and this includes language as playing
> > a role in the emergence of reality/experience and is therefore
> > universals+particulars from the first word.
>
> Right.
>
> > This is also a sort
> > of curse because we can try and treat language as a synchronic
> > achievement and attempt to fix reality once and for all, however
> > language is always a living language and closure is never possible.
>
> Ditto.
>
> > I am also happy to go a step further than pragmatism and say that
> > there is a equi-primordial Being (static quality) and Becoming(dynamic
> > quality)
> > character to reality that is a very convincing ontological basis for
> > understanding
> > experience/reality.
>
> Again, the L of CI points out that reality has not only the character of
> being and becoming but is actually constituted by, so to speak, these two
> fighting each other. As one narrow sin on one, it turns out to be the
other.
> So,although one may start with the equation SQ=Being and DQ=Becoming, it
> will not stay stable, and one can also say that SQ=Becoming and DQ=Being,
> and so the ontological basis is not a basis. It shifts endlessly.
>
> > Unlike the Platonic bias towards only Being that tries
> > to pin reality down to an essential-static quality, although the dynamic
> has always been
> > trying to force its way back into discussion, usually in the form of the
> subject.
>
> Agree, except I'm not sure of the last phrase "usually in the form of the
> subject". Are you thinking of, e.g., Romanticism? I would agree with that
in
> general, but one of my heroes is Coleridge, who sees everything as being
> based on what he called the law of polarity, which is, in essence [sic],
the
> same as the logic of contradictory identity. So, he would not put the
> dynamic on the side of the subject or the object, but sees both as both
> static and dynamic, and, of course, in a state of self-contradictory
> identity (which he calls polarity).
>
> - 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
>
>
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 11 2003 - 19:07:41 BST