Roger:
Sorry for the unclear post.....I find I often have trouble expressing
myself
Glove:
I accept your apology and offer mine too. I was rather mean-spirited in my
response, and I am sorry too. I too often have much trouble expressing
myself as I wish. I guess thats why I find value here...it helps to share
thoughts with others to learn about oneself.
Roger:
I read into your post that you implied from a many truth pragmatic
intellectual standpoint that a) it could be viewed dualistically, and that
b) it could be viewed holistically, or non dualistically. Either approach
could be the truth. I thought this was actually a fascinating new angle on
the problem.
This then got me off onto the tract though that if we can pragmatically
answer questions either way, then what is the purpose of ever answering
questions?
Glove:
It seems to me that to answer any question requires qualifications putting
boundaries around it and the answer. This is the essence of what Niels Bohr
was getting at with his framework of complementarity, in my opinion. After
reading Pirsig's Subjects, Objects, Data and Values paper, I found I was
very interested in learning more about complementarity. Failing to find much
on the net about it of any value, I ordered Henry J. Folse's book "The
Philosophy of Niels Bohr; The Framework for Complementarity" which Pirsig
used for his paper, and read it for myself. Then, being inspired by Doug
Renselles work, I started a review of the book and quickly discovered just
how much work such a project is. What I had originally thought to be a two
or three week project has turned into an infinity of ideas and ways to go
which will probably never get done.
Anyway, since I am a habitual reader of at least 4 or 5 books at any one
time, I also happened to be reading William James- Pragmatism, Radical
Empiricism and The Meaning of Truth, about the same time I was working on
the review about complementarity, and it made me see how Bohr and James were
really describing the same thing. In his radical empiricism, James says:
"I am as confident as I am of anything that, in myself, the stream of
thinking ( which I recognize emphatically as a phenomenon) is only a
careless name for what, when scrutinized, reveals itself to consist chiefly
of the stream of my breathing. The 'I Think' which Kant said must be able to
accompany all my objects, is the 'I Breathe' which actually does accompany
them."
While Bohr says:
"...here again we are not dealing with contradictory but complementary
pictures of phenomena, which only together offer a natural generalization of
the classical mode of description."
Here is the foundation of the "many truths" idea. In order to ask a question
and answer it, complementary points of view must be used, and each must be
qualified as equal to the other. Perhaps one reason for this is because for
a "thing" to exist in actuality, it must also have a complement of
non-actuality, representing the entire potentiality of the actual "thing".
We can then say, IF the "thing" acts in this way, it will do this, and
thereby determine the actuality of its potential. Both James and Bohr are
saying that we are the determining factor in the whole equation. We choose
which pictures to look at and put boundaries around and determine them
correct by agreeing with them.
What is important to remember though, is that we are only looking at
pictures. It is no longer subject or object we deal with, but the concept of
them in complementarity. This is where, for me, the Metaphysics of Quality
kind of takes over and expounds on the notion of what Bohr attempted to put
boundaries around but failed, Dynamic Quality. I have also attempted to
extend Pirsig's identification of forces of value as being creation and
discreation to that of the two being complementary values in the Metaphysics
of Quality.
In order to do that though, it is necessary to drop the notion of good OR
evil in favor of good AND evil, or even better, simply drop the whole notion
in favor of complementarity. See reality as a holistic event, as others have
suggested. Of course, then the problem of Good comes up...if everything is
Quality, the Good, where is the bad, the evil? My answer would be...IF one
looks for evil, it will manifest as a perceived stasis in the Metaphysics of
Quality. IF one looks for Good, it will manifest as Dynamic Quality, or
value forces, which we cannot perceive directly, but only by their passing.
I've rambled enough.
best wishes to all
glove
PS I recently posted in a discussion with Lithien that you are a fellow
"Conceptor" which means that I thought you stood out for unbounded,creative,
fresh , conceptual thinking..... In case you are wondering, this was meant
as a compliment too.
Thank you Roger. I did indeed take it as a compliment. I was just unsure how
to respond, thats all. Thanks again.
MOQ Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mailing List Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
Unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with
UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in the body of the email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:50 BST