From: Scott R (jse885@spinn.net)
Date: Fri Nov 21 2003 - 02:56:29 GMT
David M,
> Scott:Anyway, the L of CI can be used when the methodology you describe
> fails. It
> fails when the topic for which one seeks an explanation cannot escape
> contradiction. An example is our awareness of things changing. To be aware
> of a thing changing we must remain the same before and after the change
(we
> are continuous). But in becoming aware of a thing we are changing. To be
> continuous we must not be continuous. To be aware of ourselves changing,
we
> must not be changing.
>
> DM: So would I be right to say that we need to somehow understand how a
> unity
> or a One becomes a two or a many, and this has to be some sort of process
of
> self-alienation, only then can there be DQ at one pole and SQ at another,
> and also
> this is how we get to subject-object and therefore these poles are at a
> different level
> one?
Except that I don't think we can understand it, and the L of CI indicates
why. Also, in addition to how the One becomes many, there is the question of
how the many become one (in awareness).
Not sure what you are getting at at the end there: "...and therefore these
poles are at a different level one?".
- 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 Nov 21 2003 - 03:05:53 GMT