Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [existlist] monism

Expand Messages
  • eupraxis@aol.com
    TC, Yes, I agree. Our friend doesn t see that he is merely replacing one set of metaphor (or metonymy) for another, but in this kind of case the results are
    Message 1 of 2 , May 21, 2007

      Yes, I agree. Our friend doesn't see that he is merely replacing one set of metaphor (or metonymy) for another, but in this kind of case the results are dangerous. Where are notions of politics, ethics, value, etc.; of right, of worth, etc. One can reduce everything down to operations and neural centers, but do neural centers (basically reactive organism) define what a political subject is? Our friend's brave new world looks a good deal like the brave old world. I am not ready to be rediced to neural pathways or a genome quite yet.


      -----Original Message-----
      From: TriniCruz@...
      To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Mon, 21 May 2007 10:17 AM
      Subject: [existlist] monism


      Apparently I had a post disappear into the yahoo wasteland yesterday
      as one is missing. It occurred to me (you know the old taoist saw:
      emptiness is form and form is emptiness) that C J's kind of thinking
      is essentially a dialectical monism, though it wouldn't be if he was
      actually scientific and realized that mathematics is just a form of
      discourse and subject to the same situations concerning mental
      causality as literature. Given this I have begun to consider that
      scientifically driven agnosticism is also arguably becoming a
      dialectical monism. I do not blame science for this, as good
      scientists manage to avoid the controversy simply by remaining highly
      specialized. However some of these pseudo-scientific novelists
      actually believe they are doing a service to science and to the public
      in rendering an opinion, and their discourse should be taken for
      precisely that, opinion not science. When they use terms such as "all"
      in qualifying dynamics it is in form a dialectical monism. C J's
      attempt to use science as a cudgel to attack existentialism can then
      be taken for what it is: poor logic and foolishness; and good argument
      is readily available to dismiss his points. My point is this: in a
      hierarchy of dialectical logic there is no possible way that
      existentialism could have come before a dialectical monism. It is
      actually C J who bastardizes mathematics and science to support an
      ARCHAIC view opposing existentialism. We could argue that we "all"
      have a weakness for bullets, but some of us do not have a weakness for
      pseudo-scientific agnosticism that is actually a dialectical monism.
      Unfortunately, and Bill and I have gotten round to this before, soft
      sciences like psychology, sociology, anthropology, etc. often drift
      over the line into such, and often with pseudo-mathematical arguments.


      AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.