Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 20:07:57 -0700
From: hugh bone <hughbone-AT-worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Amphiboly means?


colin.wright3-AT-virgin.net wrote:
> 
> hugh bone wrote:
> >
> > Colin,
> >
> > I don't remember the meaning of aporia, and this is my first sighting
> > of amphiboly, if you would like to explain.
> >
> > My ruse was to prevent our usual lapse into silence due to a lack of
> > interest.
> >
> > Hugh
> 
> Hugh,
>       Aporia result from a group of individually plausible propositions
> being nonetheless inconsistent when thought of collectively. The classic
> pre-Socratic example would be:
> i) Physical change occurs.
> ii)Something persists unaffected throughout physical changes.
> iii) Matter does not persist unaffected through change.
> iv) Matter is all there is.
> This sets up the ontological, and then problematizes it. It is an aporia
> because each statement seems valid and yet as an unfoloding logic it is
> inconsistent. Aporia therefore represent challenges to the hegemony of
> the cognitive genre.
>       Amphiboly is in some ways an elaborate way of saying 'ambiguity'.
> It's a more grammatically grounded version of ambiguity: something about
> the structure of a sentence suggests alternate, even contrasting
> significations. So, if I said 'I wanted to stand on top of the Empire
> States Building for ten years', I could mean
> i) I have aspired to occupying that vantage point for the ten previous
> years
> or, conversely
> ii) that, once up there, I wish to remain there for the subsequent ten
> years.
>         You can see how these might operate as ruses. Aporia can be
> presented, in the tradition of Sophism, to derail an opponent's logic,
> to force them into an impossible choice. Amphibological ruses can act as
> nodal points for opening up tangential possibilities, performing (to
> continue the rail track metaphor) like track switches that can send a
> train (of thought/dialogue) in a different direction. Ambiguity accounts
> for much of the fecundity of literature, and literature would not be a
> bad paradigm to act as an analogue for this activity of the ruse.
>       It would seem most important to refine our ability to employ those
> ruses that impair the operation of the cognitive genre, since that is
> clearly the dominant modality of knowledge today, despite certain
> postmodern strategies. Paradox is most usefull here, as are performative
> contradictions: phrases like 'Disobey this order!', 'I promise not to
> keep this promise.', 'It is true, I am a liar' and (at least when it is
> written), 'I challenge you not to read this'. These ruses shouldn't be
> thought of as a knee jerk reaction to ALL cognitive phrases however. We
> cannot do without cognition, and there is no reason why we should. It is
> the very structure off which ruse works.
>       But if the propositional content of a phrase which operates by
> cognitive protocols of validation inflicts a violence on our expressive
> potential, then these means should be used to extricate ourselves from
> that violent genre. This is the case between 'Auschwitz' and the
> positivist Historian Faurrison, which Lyotard expounds in opening of
> 'The Differend'.
> cheers,
> Col
-AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT-

Thank you, Col. 

Your definitions and examples are excellent, and are appreciated by all
of us.

On the anniversary of the moon-landing, I am reminded that computers on
the Landing Module used software which addressed critical subsystems
that "voted" their status - very important in matters of safety.  

For whatever reason, the descent was much swifter than planned, the
vehicle missed the target landing spot by four miles, and had
only a 30-second supply of fuel left.  

Fortunately, the computers had not employed any ruses, and Armstrong had
accurate information.

Cheers,
Hugh