Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!yale!decvax!cca!mirror!.misc!inmet!janw From: janw@inmet.UUCP Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc Subject: Re: A and not A Message-ID: <117400049@inmet> Date: Fri, 26-Sep-86 10:46:00 EDT Article-I.D.: inmet.117400049 Posted: Fri Sep 26 10:46:00 1986 Date-Received: Sat, 11-Oct-86 08:02:20 EDT References: <3539@umcp-cs.UUCP> Lines: 57 Nf-ID: #R:umcp-cs.UUCP:-353900:inmet:117400049:000:2538 Nf-From: inmet.UUCP!janw Sep 26 10:46:00 1986 [Mark Weiser: mark@umcp-cs.UUCP ] >A and not A can both be true, in a consistent system, within the >definitions above, because both A and not A are in fact always >present. There is no A without not A (every foreground has its >background, else it is not present at all). Therefore in a pro- >found sense EVERY system must have both A and not A true, else it >has nothing in it at all. >(The above is loosely based on a long association with the >thought of Heidegger. This is basically Hegel's teaching on the matter, although he would not have used the words *consistent system* (something closed and static), and especially, *a* system - since that makes truth a matter of convention. To him, "truth is a process", and an objective one. The idea of "A" not only presupposes "not A" as background, but changes the "system" to call not-A forth. Paraphrasing Heraclitus, you cannot enter the same system twice. On second thoughts, I'd better say (still in a Hegelian mode but not using his vocabulary): you cannot enter the same *context* twice - and it is more inevitable than with Heraclitus's river. Water might stop flowing; but your very entering a context changes it. Now, in what direction does thought change its context? To quote Mark Weiser again, >Therefore in a profound sense EVERY system must have both A and >not A true, else it has nothing in it at all. According to Hegel, thought evolves in the direction of this "profound sense": a synthesis of the opposites inherently present in the "system" - he would have said, in Reality, being a (lowcase o) objectivist - is, step by step, realized by the pro- cess of pure thought. Each A evolves into some not-A and then into some - which was implicitly there all along. "Only in the end is a thing what it is in truth" (Hegel). Thus, in place of the "system" of Mark Weiser, there is the real- ity inquired into, and the inquiring thought - but according to Hegel, in the end, the two merge. Reality is fully knowable because it's made of the same stuff thought is. The time implied in this process of truth is logical time, not the time of nature - but (this is another story) it is, according to Hegel, also the time of human history. [Based on a long-term but long-past acquaintance with Hegel's thought. The books to read are the Phenomenology of the Spirit and the larger Logic. A good translation is essential. Hegel uses the language in many non-obvious ways.] Jan Wasilewsky