I don't think this follows. — StreetlightX
...at which time it may no longer be relevant. Oh, well... — Janus
Aren’t you confusing life and metaphysics? I don’t lose one by doing the other. They get to take turns.
My triadic approach predicts this. — apo, regarding a new and improved neo-bloomian approach
The metaphysician may lay down his metaphysics from time to time in order to engage in life. Yet, when he takes it up again, he'll nevertheless claim that his metaphysics are the ground for all the things in which he was, temporarily, unreflectively engaging. — csalisbury
The easy trick is to make the irreducible stuff the 'other' which is always-already included as other. However this stroke already misses the varied texture which is experienced as that textured variety. — csalisbury
I can express these in poems and literature, through playing with friends etc etc. I *can't* do that with the other-oriented third of a triadic metaphysics. All I can do is apply that metaphysics to this or that thing where all I find is repetitions of the same pattern. — csalisbury
But what it will lose, if it pretends to be a Literary Theory of Everything, is the poem itself. — csalisbury
The Romantics qua Romantics were thoroughly infected and inflected by the dialectical. — csalisbury
But Now if I ask you to write a poem in response, or if I ask you do some improv with me etc. — csalisbury
Why would that surprise me, given my particular totaliser scheme here?
So the dialectical manoeuvres of Romanticism are exactly what my systems logic would predict. Everything semiotic always works like that - creating itself by find its otherness to the other.
As I say, I tend to agree that poetry or art doesn't really need any overarching theory if the issue is finding "raw sensual impressionistic" pleasure in it.
The Romantic misstep you may be making is thinking that the lived level is foundational, the metaphysical level is somehow fake and inauthentic.
So if the metaphysical pole speaks of the generality, the necessity, then its opposite pole is that of the particular and the contingent. And that is not an invalid pole of being. It is the "other" pole which gives the metaphysical pole any meaning.
If you hear someone totalising, then out you dash with your counter of pluralism.
So for you, there is an obvious problem if one or the other is not defended as the foundational (making the other epiphenomenal or otherwise "illusory").
So when one goes on holiday or to an art gallery, does one document everything with a camera, try to relate it to some wider metaphysical theme. Or instead, is there a fruitfully contrary mode of simply becoming as mindlessly immersed in the sensual experience as possible?
I would gag. I couldn't fake that "encounter group" level of earnestness. :)
he'll nevertheless claim that his metaphysics are the ground for all the things in which he was, temporarily, unreflectively engaging. If such a claim is to be taken seriously, as the metaphysician intends it to be, then the things which he was doing un-metaphysically are things that can, in principle, be brought back into his metaphysical ambit. However he can only do so by reducing them. Yet its that very irreducibility that makes up the substance and texture of reality. — csalisbury
The best choice is always both ... to their extremes ... in an overall resulting balance. — apokrisis
I know. An acute sense of ridiculousness and softness and disgust seems like it underlies your whole approach. You systematically bleed things of those features, to find the skeleton, again and again and again. — csalisbury
"raw sensual impressionistic' pleasure is a construct born out of an opposition of theory and experience. — csalisbury
What I'm saying is that the 'lived level' is hyper-varied and composed of all sorts of things, including Big Concepts. — csalisbury
Yes buttttt. Didn't I address exactly this in my earlier post? — csalisbury
Exactly the opposite! I'm trying to indicate that I have problem with 'foundations' in general, not trying to usurp the throne of the-one-who-has-the-right-foundations. — csalisbury
The only way I can make sense of someone who approaches art (or other stuff) as something involving 'mindless immersion' is someone who can't think out of triadicism. — csalisbury
The species casts us off in different directions, and some of us do what we can to assimilate as many fragments of this splintered god as we can. But even this goal is a 'fragmentary.' — syntax
It gets tiring that you keep trying for these cheap oppositions - you fun-loving artistic type, me sterile reductionist - no matter how many times I explain how that is not it.
But as I say, you need me to be that other here to justify your own contrasting "metaphysics of value". I have to be as simplistic as you to make your simplicism admissible.
"raw sensual impressionistic' pleasure is a construct born out of an opposition of theory and experience. — csal
Hence the self-conscious quotes. That was the point I was making about authenticity.
I'm really not sure if you just can't see how your writing keeps trying to manifest a standard issue reductionist account. — apo
I wasn't doing that. I'm trying to understand why you think I'm doing that. It feels, frankly, weird to be accused of all these binary either/or things when the explicit triple-underlined purpose of my posts has been to find a way around them. — csalisbury
So, for instance, the whole Pierce triadic thing .... what stops me from saying this procedure is as infected, at heart, as the atomist thing? It wants to find the base of everything - then it thought a while and said, well, not the base, but the engine. But it still is driven toward the central thing, even if the central thing is a weird triadic relationship. — csalisbury
Do you see that right now you’re asking me to characterize my position in terms of yours? — csalisbury
What you need to do now is show why my consideration was wrong — csalisbury
Do you accept that it is right in seeking a foundation in an "engine" - a core relational structure?
Do you accept that the very thing of a core relational structure must be - in its simplest possible form - a triadic and hierarchical organisation?
Is this relationship still "weird"? Well why? — apokrisis
so let me be cheeky, then: I do believe I've touched a chord. — csalisbury
Finally, the engine quote. I was clearly, I thought, suggesting that the search for a foundation is flawed, substrate or engine. I wasn't avoiding responding. — csalisbury
Again, you have this fixation for either/or and missing my point - it is the dialectic of "possibly either/or" that leads you to the resolution, the synthesis, that is "definitely both". — apokrisis
So I've put forward a complex but self-consistent metaphysics. And I can't recall a single substantive challenge that you have made to that so far.[/apo]
So I have challenged it and was pretty straightforward about what the challenge was:
Having developed your system, the only thing you seem to be able to do with it is find it in everything. Again, I can count on any of your posts to neatly ignore everything in the discussion except some minimal bit which can be used as kindling to fire up yet another recapitulation of the story you've already told - I don't know how many times now. As far as I can tell the only thing your system does is find itself. It seems to be a conceptual machine the purpose of which is to seek self-confirmation of itself. I base that on what I observe you do with it.
— apo
So I've put forward a complex but self-consistent metaphysics. And I can't recall a single substantive challenge that you have made to that so far.
Your reply again may be that it is unwarranted for me to expect you to frame your response in terms that might appear to legitimate my framing of the issues in that fashion. Your actual position here is the position against all positions.
and so we have arrived at the utter vagueness that is also foundational to my anti-foundationalist position.
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.