Doug
[snip]
>Formalising the Initial Duality
>=====================
>Choosing the starting point is not a problem as this is already a fait
>accompli. The very act of theorising - like we are doing - implies this. The
>immediate consequence of this foolish act is to deform what we are talking
>about. There is no need to create a duality and there is no escape from
>duality.....[snip]
I agree that it is convincing and would almost have to except it ...
but this does not mean that I have to accept any particular starting point
as anything other than a "pragmatic" necessity (and quite possible a
pragmatic advantage if it leads to a more clear understanding of the
"world"). Unfortunately I find myself "pinched persipiringly in the
epistemological dilemma of the skeptic, unable to accept solutions to
problems .. [I am] ... unwilling to dismiss as unsolveable." {Heller,
Catch-22} As such I have resigned myself to picking out problems in
philosophies and never coming up with a better solution (I am unconvinced by
my own ideas when I do this). In the end, I still have to get by in the world.
That is one reason why I liked Heidegger so much. The problems I
saw him running into were not as evident in his starting points as they were
near the end of "Being and Time".
>Having committed the "sin" it is necessary to make the necessary adjustments.
>This can be achieved by guaranteeing that even though there is a difference
>created in this original dichotomy, if this difference can be maintained as an
>_indistingishable_ difference, then you won't be able to discern the "sin."
>This leads to the basic generic principle of consciousness (or read,
>substitute -> objective theory). Consciousness is characterised by its
>inability to distinguish between the entities of consciousness and the
>corresponding entities of reality. David Chalmers has referred to explaining
>the relationship between consciousness and reality as the Hard Problem. In
>generic science, the Hard Problem not treated as a problem but as a basic
>system invariant. Consciousness must maintain at all costs the
>indistinguishablity of the two sides of the equation whilst maintaining the
>difference. If it fails to continually achieve this then we have a
>consciousness suffering from a severe system integrity disorder. Consciousness
>is thus obliged to ape reality - or is it reality that is aping consciousness?
[snip]
>Formalising the Initial Duality
>=====================
>Choosing the starting point is not a problem as this is already a fait
>accompli. The very act of theorising - like we are doing - implies this. The
>immediate consequence of this foolish act is to deform what we are talking
>about. There is no need to create a duality and there is no escape from
>duality.....[snip]
I agree that it is convincing and would almost have to except it ...
but this does not mean that I have to accept any particular starting point
as anything other than a "pragmatic" necessity (and quite possible a
pragmatic advantage if it leads to a more clear understanding of the
"world"). Unfortunately I find myself "pinched persipiringly in the
epistemological dilemma of the skeptic, unable to accept solutions to
problems .. [I am] ... unwilling to dismiss as unsolveable." {Heller,
Catch-22} As such I have resigned myself to picking out problems in
philosophies and never coming up with a better solution (I am unconvinced by
my own ideas when I do this). In the end, I still have to get by in the world.
That is one reason why I liked Heidegger so much. The problems I
saw him running into were not as evident in his starting points as they were
near the end of "Being and Time".
>Having committed the "sin" it is necessary to make the necessary adjustments.
>This can be achieved by guaranteeing that even though there is a difference
>created in this original dichotomy, if this difference can be maintained as an
>_indistingishable_ difference, then you won't be able to discern the "sin."
>This leads to the basic generic principle of consciousness (or read,
>substitute -> objective theory). Consciousness is characterised by its
>inability to distinguish between the entities of consciousness and the
>corresponding entities of reality. David Chalmers has referred to explaining
>the relationship between consciousness and reality as the Hard Problem. In
>generic science, the Hard Problem not treated as a problem but as a basic
>system invariant. Consciousness must maintain at all costs the
>indistinguishablity of the two sides of the equation whilst maintaining the
>difference. If it fails to continually achieve this then we have a
>consciousness suffering from a severe system integrity disorder. Consciousness
>is thus obliged to ape reality - or is it reality that is aping consciousness?