[MD] MD Quality, DQ and SQ

[ian glendinning]

Scott, (and Platt mentioned)

I was just reading Harold Pinter's Nobel Prize acceptance speech,
http://books.guardian.co.uk/news/articles/0,6109,1661516,00.html?gusrc=rss
noticed this quote and thought of you ...

'There are no hard distinctions between what is real and what is
unreal, nor between what is true and what is false. A thing is not
necessarily either true or false; it can be both true and false."
Written in 1958.

Can't wait to hear Platt's opinion on the rest of the speech.

Ian

On 12/8/05, ian glendinning <psybertron at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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/
> >
>