Re: MD A metaphysics

From: David MOREY (
Date: Sat Sep 13 2003 - 21:31:51 BST

  • Next message: David Buchanan: "RE: Sheldrake (MD economics of want and greed 4)"


    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" <>
    To: <>
    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
    > a metaphysical Eye, that recognizes Truth when it sees it, as analoguous
    > the physical eye we sense things with. That's why representationalists
    > 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
    > idea how this is done. They don't accept the analogy between a sensory
    > and a metaphysical Eye.
    > [Scott:] You may be interested that Coleridge sees bad philosophy (aka
    > 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
    > something "to be seen", actually (as in naive materialism -- what is real
    > what is perceivable) or analogically, he also rails against it for another
    > reason. That is the tendency to simply give up thinking when the
    > 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
    > 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
    > his law of polarity, which cannot be visualized because it involves
    > self-contradictory identity. It requires, and indeed is, Imagination, in
    > use of the word.
    > - Scott
    > MOQ.ORG -
    > Mail Archives:
    > Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    > Nov '02 Onward -
    > MD Queries -
    > To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

    MOQ.ORG -
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    Nov '02 Onward -
    MD Queries -

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Sep 13 2003 - 21:36:35 BST