File spoon-archives/marxism-thaxis.archive/marxism-thaxis_1998/marxism-thaxis.9803, message 218


Date: Mon, 9 Mar 98 3:43:32 EST
From: boddhisatva <kbevans-AT-panix.com>
Subject: Re: M-TH: Dialectics and Paraconsistent Logic







		To whom...,



	It seems to me that the problem with the two paradoxical sentences
is that they are both self-negating.  If I write the sentence "This
sentence does not exist.", the problem seems a little clearer.  A thing
cannot negate itself, since it's existence is an a priori requirement. 
Therefore the sentence "This sentence does not exist." exists but in
character does not reflect reality.  The sentence "This sentence is not
true." exists.  It exists before we get to the end of the sentence.  The
words "This sentence is...." represent a material fact.  The words "not
true" are an attempt to represent a subsequent interpretation of reality. 
The paradox come when we focus on the "not true" without realizing that
it's possibilities have been limited by the words "This sentence is".  If
I write the sentence "This sentence is yellow.", the sentence is rendered
moot and nonsensical before it is even read.  The first letter of the
sentence precludes its conclusion's being true (unless you have a very
odd mail reader).  



	Zeno's paradox is the same way.  We first stipulate that Achilles
runs faster than the tortoise, then we fall into the paradox by thinking
that Achilles can half the distance between himself and the tortoise
eternally. The problem is that the stipulation does not allow the
possibility of the second observation to be true.  There is no way to
measure time which does not allow for Achilles to overtake the tortoise.
Obviously Achilles could not overtake the tortoise if time and all
existence stopped, but that is a moot case.  It is a self-negation.  Once
we say "faster", we have decided the relative fates of Achilles and the
tortoise.



	The "Monty Hall" problem shows the falsity of paradoxes that do
not accept their own premise.  There are three curtains.  One has a car
behind it.  I pick one.  Monty opens a different one which proves not to
have the car behind it.  Now there are two left, the one I picked and the
other one.  The temptation is to believe that there is an equal
probability the car is behind either of the two remaining curtains.  There
isn't, of course, but when faced with a situation with two unknowns - one
the right choice and one the wrong - one tends to make the fifty-fifty
assumption. 




	Descartes didn't have to say "I think, therefore I am."  All he
had to say was "I".  I think it was a Zen Buddhist who made the statement
"We prefer flowers to weeds."  This typically enigmatic and elliptical
sentence refers to the Buddhist doctrine that all matter, life and death,
etc. are equal by definition.  Obviously there is no ontological
difference between flowers and weeds, yet we prefer flowers to weeds.  The
existence of that preference is taken as evidence of the unique, positive,
compassionate character of our existence.  It implies that after we reduce
all our preconceptions to nothing we are left with our positive
appreciation of existence.  It is close, in that way, to Descartes, but
allows for a minimal, yet transcendental "starting point".  I don't mean
to endorse it as such, but it has the desirable quality of accepting the
fact that *all* premises limit the possibilities of conclusion (even in a
religious philosophy that has "nothingness" as one of its precepts).
Once one accepts that no premise allows for all possibilities, paradoxes
are reduced.  





	peace






     --- from list marxism-thaxis-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005