essence and identity - Integral Post-Metaphysical Spirituality2024-03-28T12:32:29Zhttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/essence-and-identity?commentId=5301756%3AComment%3A27665&feed=yes&xn_auth=noThomas,
I agree with Theurj…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2011-09-17:5301756:Comment:286812011-09-17T17:38:58.301Zinfimitashttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/GavinRiggott
<p>Thomas,</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I agree with Theurji that we risk interpreting each other uncharitably if we apply a double standard in our reasoning. Consider my previous statement (that you agreed with), that "absolute truth cannot be demonstrated, because any particular "truth" depends on at least a few other beliefs, and each of those [beliefs] depend on yet more beliefs, and so on." In that case, I qualified my statement; but take away my qualification and we have the seemingly…</p>
<p>Thomas,</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I agree with Theurji that we risk interpreting each other uncharitably if we apply a double standard in our reasoning. Consider my previous statement (that you agreed with), that "absolute truth cannot be demonstrated, because any particular "truth" depends on at least a few other beliefs, and each of those [beliefs] depend on yet more beliefs, and so on." In that case, I qualified my statement; but take away my qualification and we have the seemingly self-contradictory assertion that "absolute truth cannot be demonstrated". Taken out of context in that way, it might sound like I said that I know <em>absolutely</em> that absolute truth cannot be demonstrated. Obviously though, I only mean that, <em>given the circular nature of epistemology</em>, we cannot demonstrate absolute truth whilst simultaneously maintaining logical consistency. I could be wrong about that, I suppose, but I'd need a clear and concise argument to show me why -- just accusing me of a "logical contradiction" would prove nothing.</p> One of the sources of disagre…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2011-09-17:5301756:Comment:287832011-09-17T14:10:31.429ZEdward theurj Bergehttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/theurj
One of the sources of disagreement here is the nature of contradiction and how it is interpreted. Tom keeps finding statements to be contradictory except when he does it, his own being rationalized from some quantum wholeness that accepts contradiction as complimentarity. But again, it's in how we interpret complimentarity. Tom sees Joel's holons all the way down and up as an infinite regress, whereas Joel says that it is so only seen from a certain view that imposes a certain logic of…
One of the sources of disagreement here is the nature of contradiction and how it is interpreted. Tom keeps finding statements to be contradictory except when he does it, his own being rationalized from some quantum wholeness that accepts contradiction as complimentarity. But again, it's in how we interpret complimentarity. Tom sees Joel's holons all the way down and up as an infinite regress, whereas Joel says that it is so only seen from a certain view that imposes a certain logic of contradiction upon it. We also see this difference in the likes of Desilet's iterability, which too is an infinite divisibility that violates Aristotle's postulate of noncontradiction while nonetheless being a 'center' of sorts (see p. 7 of this thread). Here are a few excerpts from Joel's <em><a href="http://www.spinbitz.net/archives/Sorce_Theory_UtB_ebook.pdf" target="_blank">Sorce Theory</a></em> where we see something akin to L&J's false reason in the foundations of reason.<br/>
<br/>
“This notion of infinitely divisible, and indeed infinitely divided continuity is perhaps better understood through Gilles Deleuze’s Leibnizian concept of 'the fold'... if we conceive of the division not as time-ordered, but as already existent in the eternal NOW... that mathematical abstraction affords us...then the a priori infinite division itself is equivalent to the order of the uncountable infinity, which is the modern mathematical continuum itself. It is in this a priori and absolute sense, then, that 'infinite division equals indivisibility.' <br/>
<br/>
“Thus by taking the concept of plurality to the absolute scope of first principles (e.g. infinite division) we end up with the indivisibility of the Parmenidean 'Being-now.' This 'paradox of plurality,' Verelst shows, underlies all of Zeno’s paradoxes of motion, and thus what Zeno demonstrated is not that motion is impossible, but indivisible—every segment of apparent motion is indivisible from an immanent and transcendent, instantaneous and eternal 'Being-now.'<br/>
<br/>
“Thus we find that the fundamental principle of Nondual Rationalism was introduced at the very beginnings of rationality itself, but it was originally conceived as a contradiction or paradox. And ever since the Aristotelian introduction of the principle of contradiction—inaugurating the exoteric and dualistic form of rationality to come—dualistic rationality could not codify and operationalize the nondual reality (polarity) underlying the very inception of rationality itself. And so it was conceived as an anomaly to be refuted” (132 -135).<br/>
<br/> And as I see it infirmitas de…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2011-09-16:5301756:Comment:287792011-09-16T23:28:37.067ZEdward theurj Bergehttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/theurj
And as I see it infirmitas described pretty much what postmetaphysics asserts. Which includes an hol(on)ism, as well as being empirically grounded in the type of embodied continuity it seems Joel was referencing.
And as I see it infirmitas described pretty much what postmetaphysics asserts. Which includes an hol(on)ism, as well as being empirically grounded in the type of embodied continuity it seems Joel was referencing. There are alternatives to fou…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2011-09-16:5301756:Comment:287772011-09-16T22:19:52.236Zinfimitashttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/GavinRiggott
<p>There are alternatives to foundationalism, Theurji. Holism, for example -- the idea that beliefs and ideas hang together as a more or less consistent whole. Quine called this pattern of mutually dependant ideas a "web of belief". According to him, truth does not build up from one belief to the next in a linear, ladder-like fashion, with an irrefutable axiom at the bottom. Instead, individual "facts" entail multiple beliefs, in a sort of epistemological circle. That means absolute truth…</p>
<p>There are alternatives to foundationalism, Theurji. Holism, for example -- the idea that beliefs and ideas hang together as a more or less consistent whole. Quine called this pattern of mutually dependant ideas a "web of belief". According to him, truth does not build up from one belief to the next in a linear, ladder-like fashion, with an irrefutable axiom at the bottom. Instead, individual "facts" entail multiple beliefs, in a sort of epistemological circle. That means absolute truth cannot be demonstrated, because any particular "truth" depends on at least a few other beliefs, and each of those depend on yet more beliefs, and so on.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>In this model, then, one's most basic, cherished beliefs are not foundational; they are just relatively secure in the sense that it'd take really good evidence and/or reasoning for one to abandon them. IMO, holism works much better for "postmetaphysics". The early 20th century tried hard to create a consistent foundationalism in the form of logical positivism. It failed, and holism is one of the theories that rose to replace it.</p> Recall this post? A snippet:…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2011-09-16:5301756:Comment:287762011-09-16T22:01:19.085ZEdward theurj Bergehttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/theurj
<p>Recall <a href="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/essence-and-identity?commentId=5301756%3AComment%3A28613" target="_self">this post</a>? A snippet:</p>
<p>“Since it harbors duplicity this new ‘center’ does not so much provide a basis for knowledge as a means for understanding the limits of knowledge.”</p>
<p>You really don't get to redefine terms for me Tom. That I accept, anyway.</p>
<p>Recall <a href="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/essence-and-identity?commentId=5301756%3AComment%3A28613" target="_self">this post</a>? A snippet:</p>
<p>“Since it harbors duplicity this new ‘center’ does not so much provide a basis for knowledge as a means for understanding the limits of knowledge.”</p>
<p>You really don't get to redefine terms for me Tom. That I accept, anyway.</p> Your anti-foundational view i…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2011-09-16:5301756:Comment:287722011-09-16T20:29:10.992ZEdward theurj Bergehttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/theurj
<p><em>Your anti-foundational view is foundational, yes?</em></p>
<p>You're mixing and matching terms again. Foundational in terms of metaphysics, yes. Foundational in terms of asserting the kind of metaphysics that posits an ultimate (no)thing (quantum realm, whatever) that is everything (or a totality, whatever), no.</p>
<p><em>In the scale of pre-modern metaphysics, modern metaphysics and post-modern "metaphysics", where does "pre-rational" fit in? Science seems to me largely modern,…</em></p>
<p><em>Your anti-foundational view is foundational, yes?</em></p>
<p>You're mixing and matching terms again. Foundational in terms of metaphysics, yes. Foundational in terms of asserting the kind of metaphysics that posits an ultimate (no)thing (quantum realm, whatever) that is everything (or a totality, whatever), no.</p>
<p><em>In the scale of pre-modern metaphysics, modern metaphysics and post-modern "metaphysics", where does "pre-rational" fit in? Science seems to me largely modern, because it seeks a foundation of self-evident axioms or principles by which it can build up knowledge.</em></p>
<p>Note that Joel called it pre-rational. I happen to think that foundationalism arises with dichotomous reason or 'false' reason, as L&J call it. Science is foundationalist when it too seeks the ultimate part or whole, an expression of false reason.</p> Hi Theurji,
In the scale of…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2011-09-16:5301756:Comment:282772011-09-16T18:16:12.790Zinfimitashttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/GavinRiggott
<p>Hi Theurji,</p>
<p> </p>
<p>In the scale of pre-modern metaphysics, modern metaphysics and post-modern "metaphysics", where does "pre-rational" fit in? Science seems to me largely modern, because it seeks a foundation of self-evident axioms or principles by which it can build up knowledge.</p>
<p>Hi Theurji,</p>
<p> </p>
<p>In the scale of pre-modern metaphysics, modern metaphysics and post-modern "metaphysics", where does "pre-rational" fit in? Science seems to me largely modern, because it seeks a foundation of self-evident axioms or principles by which it can build up knowledge.</p> Joel (from QE): "Quantum Scie…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2011-09-16:5301756:Comment:287552011-09-16T17:59:09.103ZEdward theurj Bergehttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/theurj
<p>Joel (from QE): "Quantum Science, and science in general is still operating on the pre-rational and indeed medieval foundationalism."</p>
<p>Which is of course my claim in this thread, that it appears Tom is maintaining a foundationalism in the same way that Rosch does, and those Buddhist traditions she calls shentong. It's the same criticism of foundationalism by Lakoff with this term 'false reason.'</p>
<p>Joel (from QE): "Quantum Science, and science in general is still operating on the pre-rational and indeed medieval foundationalism."</p>
<p>Which is of course my claim in this thread, that it appears Tom is maintaining a foundationalism in the same way that Rosch does, and those Buddhist traditions she calls shentong. It's the same criticism of foundationalism by Lakoff with this term 'false reason.'</p> Hrmm, re-reading my last ramb…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2011-09-16:5301756:Comment:285432011-09-16T16:32:40.707Zinfimitashttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/GavinRiggott
<p>Hrmm, re-reading my last ramble/post... well, it made sense to me when I wrote it! I just meant that if we trace one of the possible evolutions of the concept of essence, we see that "suobject" already does a good enough job at replacing it -- I don't think we need another word.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Theurji, quoting Joel:</p>
<p> </p>
<blockquote><p>Quanta are pre-Nagarjunan essences or identities.</p>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Surely we should say something like, "All our best science suggests…</p>
<p>Hrmm, re-reading my last ramble/post... well, it made sense to me when I wrote it! I just meant that if we trace one of the possible evolutions of the concept of essence, we see that "suobject" already does a good enough job at replacing it -- I don't think we need another word.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Theurji, quoting Joel:</p>
<p> </p>
<blockquote><p>Quanta are pre-Nagarjunan essences or identities.</p>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Surely we should say something like, "All our best science suggests that quanta exist as our models suggest, so we can, for all intents and purposes, treat them as true, even though we hold back from declaring them outright metaphysical truths." I guess I always want to emphasise caution.</p> I'm trying to keep up with To…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2011-09-16:5301756:Comment:287462011-09-16T13:04:58.510ZEdward theurj Bergehttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/theurj
<p>I'm trying to keep up with Tom and Joel's discussion in the QE thread but honestly it is so filled with technical argot that it is (mostly) indecipherable to me, much like mathematical symbols. But per my last quote above this doesn't mean I'm at a lower level of overall development, just not into math and unfamiliar with specialized language in that particular context. Nevertheless, a few of Joel's statements <em>seem</em> to resonate with some of the ideas expressed in this thread, but I…</p>
<p>I'm trying to keep up with Tom and Joel's discussion in the QE thread but honestly it is so filled with technical argot that it is (mostly) indecipherable to me, much like mathematical symbols. But per my last quote above this doesn't mean I'm at a lower level of overall development, just not into math and unfamiliar with specialized language in that particular context. Nevertheless, a few of Joel's statements <em>seem</em> to resonate with some of the ideas expressed in this thread, but I might be wrong. Here are a few excepts of Joel from that thread:</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">"Post-rational...continuity is <strong>already</strong> differentiated or folded through and through infinitely.... There are NO fundamental quanta. Infinite divisibility, taken outside of time, <em>is</em> indivisibility.... Continuity is already divided through-and-through.... Quanta are pre-Nagarjunan essences or identities."</p>