From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Sat Sep 13 2003 - 21:31:51 BST
Hi
Seems good to me, sefl-contradictory identity,
pure Schelling of course, and has recently been used
by Andrew Bowie to move beyond some of Derrida's
problems. What does this all mean to our poor
audience -if any. I suggest a human being is your best
example, identity is meant to be selfsameness, self
coincidence, wher A=A. Human beings have identity,
human beings constantly change, so no A=A here,
yet there is still identity: self-contradictory identity.
Or just the obvious evolution of the cosmos, single word,
yet evolves, therefore identity and yet different.
Got it!
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott R" <jse885@spinn.net>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Saturday, September 13, 2003 6:04 PM
Subject: Re: MD A metaphysics
> Matt,
>
> [Matt:] > When I say that the analogy hinges on an ocular metaphor, I mean
> that the representationalist takes the example and creates the existence
of
> a metaphysical Eye, that recognizes Truth when it sees it, as analoguous
to
> the physical eye we sense things with. That's why representationalists
say
> the truth is "justified _true_ belief": they think that our special Eye
> tells us when a belief is true and not just justified. Pragmatists have
no
> idea how this is done. They don't accept the analogy between a sensory
eye
> and a metaphysical Eye.
>
> [Scott:] You may be interested that Coleridge sees bad philosophy (aka
SOM)
> as coming about through what he calls "the despotism of the eye". While I
> think he would agree with the above, in that he does not hold with Truth
as
> something "to be seen", actually (as in naive materialism -- what is real
is
> what is perceivable) or analogically, he also rails against it for another
> reason. That is the tendency to simply give up thinking when the
discussion
> moves to the non-visualizable.
>
> An example is the tendency to call quantum physics paradoxical, when it is
> not at all. The mathematics is perfectly consistent (as it must be to be
> mathematics). However, what we cannot do is visualize the goings on at the
> quantum level which the mathematics indicates, since visualization
requires
> that things behave like particles or waves, but not both simultaneously,
> that they have precise locations and momenta, etc.
>
> Of course, he knew nothing of quantum mechanics, and what he had in mind
is
> his law of polarity, which cannot be visualized because it involves
> self-contradictory identity. It requires, and indeed is, Imagination, in
his
> use of the word.
>
> - 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 : Sat Sep 13 2003 - 21:36:35 BST