[MD] MD Quality, DQ and SQ

[ian glendinning]

Scott ...

You said
[To] hold pragmatist critiques to be fundamental ... but pragmatists
don't like anything to be fundamental.

Which is why I see this recursion (and your CI) as a positive aspect
to accept as part of reality. Like - my only axiom is there are no
axioms, is an OK axiom to hold - surely ? I love it. Hofstadter's
strange loopiness is better than logic. Exclusive poles are indeed
nonsense.

You also concluded
Though CI cannot be thought through, it can be thought, and therefore
is a vital clue to the nature of thought (and consciousness and
quality).

I still don't fully understand what CI actually is, but I like the shape of it.

(Materialism is so old hat - I'm not sure why you raised it ?)

Ian

On 12/5/05, Scott Roberts <jse885 at localnet.com> wrote:
> Ian,
>
> Ian said:
> Scott, You said
> "The undivided and the divided ARE contradictory identity."
>
> Scott, You also said [paraphrasing]
> "Even REALITY, or the one true metaphysics, is doomed to stumble
> through [a nest of dichotomies, dualities and recursions] and irony
> [or accepting contracdictions] is an essential part of making sense of
> it."
>
> I say somehow Scott we are violently agreeing (something I've always
> suspected).
> I say you should just give in ...
> ... and accept you are a pragmatist (like the best of us) :-)
> ie you are saying pragmatism IS fundamental.
>
> Scott:
> Well, your paraphrase needs comment, which I'll get to in a moment. On
> whether I am a pragmatist, I could say I am, because I hold pragmatist
> critiques to be fundamental, but pragmatists don't like anything to be
> fundamental -- which is to say they critique foundationalism. My claim
> against that is that this provides a new foundation, which goes by the names
> of 'language games', 'eternal critique', 'creation be setting criteria', and
> so forth. Here's another: as soon as one acknowledges multi-culturalism, one
> has made a step that transcends cultural relativism.
>
> On your paraphrase. First of all, the phrase "nest of dualisms" is Dewey's,
> but he and I take very different tacks on it. Dewey wants to just get rid of
> them in philosophy. I want to rethink them (some of them anyway, like
> 'many/one') as contradictory identity, and make that fundamental. And that
> is the next point. I am not about "accepting contradictions". For example, I
> reject materialism because it contains contradictions (mainly, the
> Munchhausen fallacy), which is what my posts to Case in the "Looking for the
> Primary Difference" thread are about. A contradictory identity is a
> different matter. On the one hand, it forces acceptance (because any attempt
> to deny one or the other pole results in nonsense: for example, the
> emergence theory of consciousness cannot deal with consciousness' continuity
> pole), but also prevents acceptance. By the latter, I mean that it cannot be
> "thought through" -- it always escapes being understood. But this is also
> different from the "DQ is ineffable" claim, in that though CI cannot be
> thought through, it can be thought, and therefore is a vital clue to the
> nature of thought (and consciousness and quality).
>
> - Scott
>
>
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>