From: Scott Roberts (jse885@localnet.com)
Date: Sun Jan 30 2005 - 05:15:14 GMT
Platt,
[Scott prev]> > No. It is only cognitive dissonance if the utterer of "there
are no
> > absolutes" is unaware of its apparent self-contradiction, but that's not
> > likely. Now I said "apparent" self-contradiction, because, among the
> > absolutes that the utterer is denying the existence of is the claim that
> > the law of contradiction of Aristotelian logic applies everywhere.
> > Sometimes the true may be self-contradictory.
>
[Platt:]> Believe it or not I had you in mind when responding to MSH's claim
that
"if
> one cannot find fault with the premises of the logic, then they are being
> irrational." If he (or anyone) defines rational as being logical, then one
must
> accept the law of contradiction to be rational. Since the statement "There
are
> no absolutes" is self-contradictory, it's irrational whether the utterer
is aware
> of it or not. (I don't think the awareness of the utterer has any bearing
on the
> validity of logic.)
[Scott] On the last parenthetical, yes, awareness doesn't bear on the
validity of logic. But it does have bearing on the meaning of "cognitive
dissonance". Indeed, the way to overcome cognitive dissonance is to bring
the contradictory beliefs into awareness.
>
> > (By the way, it is not my opinion that "there are no absolutes", as I
think
> > there is one absolute, namely Absolute Nothingness. But it is my opinion
> > that the true may sometimes be self-contradictory.).
>
> Which is precisely why I had you in mind. I couldn't find a direct quote,
> but remember that you have argued for Merrell-Wolff's idea that there are
> times when the law of contradiction doesn't apply. That idea has great
> appeal to me because it suggests a level above the intellectual where
> aesthetics comes into play. As you may know, I'm a proponent of the arts
> as a key to the next revolution in understanding (vs. SOM science), but am
> far from the summit of that mountain, looking for a flash from DQ to
> illuminate the way. Your explication of self-contradictory truth appeared
> to me as a flicker of that illumination, but I haven't been able to follow
> it up. Maybe you can help me see the way, I hope.
Here's the Merrell-Wolff quote:
"While in the State [of High Indifference, as he called it], I was
particularly impressed with the fact that the logical principle of
contradiction had no relevancy. It would not be correct to say that this
principle was violated, but rather, that it had no application. For to
isolate any phase of the State was to be immediately aware of the opposite
phase as the necessary complementary part of the first. Thus the attempt of
self-conscious thought to isolate anything resulted in the immediate
initiation of a sort of flow in the very essence of consciousness itself, so
that the nascent isolation was transformed into its opposite as co-partner
in a timeless reality....It seemed to be the real underlying fact of all
consciousness of all creatures." [Experience and Philosophy, p.286]
I think that Merrell-Wolff would not say that this is "a level above the
intellectual where aesthetics comes into play", though it is certainly above
the "relative" intellect of ordinary consciousness. On the level he is
talking about, the aesthetic and the intellectual are the same (which is why
I keep recommending that Intellect and Quality be considered names for the
same (non-)thing).
- Scott
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Jan 30 2005 - 06:26:58 GMT