A separate topic...
Posted: Mon Dec 20, 2021 11:20 pm
TriloByte said in the Cleric/Eugene thread
I should mention that I've discovered a logical error in the essay. To correct it, I've done a strike-through on the sentence:
My intent in the Tetralemmic Polarity essay was not to integrate any existing philosophies (though it might serve to do such integration). Rather it was just to provide a logical tool to get one past the perennial oppositions: one/many, time/timelessness, being/becoming, and so on. It does, I grant, suggest an ontological claim, namely that there is no formlessness, there are no forms, there is only the polarity. But latterly I'm thinking this is too abstract to bother defending as an ontology, though I still hold to its value as a logical tool.TriloByte wrote:I would agree. I think that was what Scott Roberts was doing, integrating BK idealism, non-dualism and Steinerian Science in one philosophy. I don’t know if he is still working in that regard. Sadly he doesn’t write in this forum as much as he did before.
I should mention that I've discovered a logical error in the essay. To correct it, I've done a strike-through on the sentence:
and the Addendum says:Note that there can only be one formlessness, since if there were two, there must be that which distinguishes one from the other, which means they would have form. [See Addendum]
I have crossed out the line saying "there can only be one formlessness" since, though it may hold logically for some absolute formlessness, experientially one must consider the possibility of "relative formlessness". That is, while one might experience a mystical "formlessness" state, there is no telling if one is not simply focused on some world of forms that one is unable to experience. To make an analogy, suppose one sees a blank piece of paper, but is unaware that it contains words written in invisible ink.