Hi Ian The Bergson is certainly a worthwhile read. His Matter and Memory is also very interesting.
David M ----- Original Message ----- From: "ian glendinning" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, October 07, 2007 5:21 PM Subject: Re: [MD] subject / object logic > Interestingly David (and DMB) I've just finished reading Henri > Bergson's "Creative Evolution" > > Apart from his main thesis on "modus vivendi" - the creative drive > that is life itself - he dwells at length on the idea that negation > says no more than assertion as far as ontology is concerned. > > ie to say X is not white (instead of X is black) (or it's illusion > instead of not real) says nothing about reality. He suggests these are > just pedagogic statements aimed at educating / correcting another > person but say no more about reality itself. > > He's right. Saying something is an illusion, says nothing about > whether or not it really exists - it actually says something about how > another person perceives (or says they believe) about what exists. > > Ian > > On 10/7/07, David M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Hi DMB >> >> Nice to hear from you. I am surprised that you do not get my point. In >> the >> context of the philosophy >> of language developed from Saussure onwards and all the way up to Derrida >> I'd see this as a basic tenet of >> the workings of language. But of course you can challenge this view. But >> to >> elaborate a bit. My emphasis >> is on the word 'all'. If we use any word, whether 'real' or 'illusion', >> about the 'all' we are failing to make >> any distinction and therefore using a different word either 'x' or 'y' to >> refer to this all makes no difference. >> If we say it is all 'black' or it is all 'white', then is not black and >> white just a different name for the same thing? >> In contrast we might say that experienced reality can be divided into >> complimentary aspects such as >> static/dynamic.Where we can understand that what is dynamic is in >> contrast >> to what is static, so that there >> is a genuine distinction and the contrasted terms have meaning in >> contrast >> to each other. I am saying that if >> you say 'it is all illusion' or 'it is all real' you are doing nothing to >> create a distinction between different types >> of experience that can be contrasted. >> >> Of course, when people say it is all illusion, they are often referring >> to >> experience as an illusion and >> contrasting it with something transcendingexperience that is more real >> than >> experience. This is the dualism >> that has been developed from Plato to Descartes to Kant. The suggestion >> that >> experience is an illusion >> and a mere appearance and mere flux compared to the certainties of >> trannscendental things-in-themselves, >> or transcendental ideas, is a way to de-value experience and our common >> life. Nietzsche, Heidegger, Derrida, >> James, Dewey, Rorty, Taylor, Pirsig, DMB and I, of course, reject this >> dualism. So yes, where DMB, considers >> that the dualistic use of the term illusion to de-value experience he is >> right that this could have a serious impact >> on our behaviour. Buit the impact is quite odd. I doubt thinking that >> experience is an illusion would result in >> many people sticking pins into their flesh. Yet people with religious >> outlooks that de-value the actual world >> have used this attitude to ignore worldly pleasures and achieve amazing >> things. Nonetheless, I'd contrast the >> dualistic notion of illusion with a non-dualistic and preferable notion >> that >> all experience is real, which of course, >> has no clear meaning as there is no illusion to contrast it to. But >> experience is always a matter of value, >> what we experience can clearly be divided into good and bad experiences. >> >> Of course, eastern thinkers talk alot about illusion. But they are not >> dualists. What they are trying to say is that >> life and experience have very few constants, all is change and flux, in >> the >> end, SQ is an illusion created by DQ. >> And they do not live in Platonic fear of change, they do not think that >> the >> truly real must be unchanging. They >> accept change and recognise its positive value. But perhaps they >> undervalue >> order, the threat of disorder >> and destruction, and the opportunities to improve out powers of control. >> I >> had the eastern in mind when I >> suggested my: it is all real is little different from it is all illusion. >> >> Anyone interest in how SOM banished values from western discourse should >> see >> Charles Taylor's >> 'Sources of the Self'. DMB you should read this, ask your tutor if he has >> read it. >> >> Any help. >> >> David M >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 9/22/07, David M wrote: >> Is there any difference between: it is all real [and] it is all illusion? >> I'd suggest not. >> >> dmb says: >> What?! Of course there's a difference. Think for a while about all the >> many >> ways one would act if they believed its all real. Then think about what >> kind >> of life that same person would have if they believed the second one. Now >> preform that same exercise on the total population instead of one person. >> I'd suggest those are two very, very different worlds. In other words, >> the >> practical consequences of holding one beleif or the other is enormous. >> >> The way in which we can say there is no difference is if we're only >> talking >> about a guy sitting there and doing nothing except believing in one or >> the >> other. In that case no belief in the world makes any difference, but >> this >> hypothetical inert armchair guy is an unrealistic and trivial way to >> measure >> the value of an idea. Don't you think? >> _________________________________________________________________ >> Boo! Scare away worms, viruses and so much more! Try Windows Live >> OneCare! >> http://onecare.live.com/standard/en-us/purchase/trial.aspx?s_cid=wl_hotmailnews >> Moq_Discuss mailing list >> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. >> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org >> Archives: >> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ >> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ >> >> >> Moq_Discuss mailing list >> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. >> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org >> Archives: >> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ >> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ >> > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
