Dear Jonathan,
Non-separateness and identity are not the same thing! Your argument
against dualism assumes that the duals are somehow separable and
non-mutually dependent and thus lacking a linking mechanism dualism fails as
a viable theory. On the other hand, once we see the flaw in the
Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Jonathan,
Non-separateness and identity are not the same thing!
Your argument
against dualism assumes that the duals are somehow separable and
non-mutually dependent and thus lacking a linking mechanism dualism
fails as
a viable theory. On the other hand, once we
D]
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2005 11:40 AM
Subject: Re: In defense of Dualism (typos
corrected)
snipDear SPK
Though I entirely agree with what you state above, I take issue with your
characterization of "Platonism" as some form of mathematical monism.
If you had ca
s, and not Existence in-itself.
My words are ill-posed here, I apologize.Kindest
regards,Stephen
- Original Message -
From:
Joao
Leao
To: Stephen
Paul King
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
; everything-list@eskimo.com
; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2005 11:40 AM
Subject: Re: In defense
]
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2005 1:13 PM
Subject: Re: In defense of Dualism
(typos corrected)
Dear Stephen,
I think I catch your point. As it happens the distinction Being/Becoming
(as Form/Substance) are very Aristotelian, both in origin and in the way
we use them. If the distinction has any m
From: Joao Leao
Our access to mathematical archetypes is in
this sense a map to help us make our way back
to the garden, as Joni Mitchell (that great
Platonist) would put it!
If I remember well - but I studied all that 35
years ago - Aristotle called all that 'hylomorphism',
from hule =
I am not sure that the Aristotelic term applied
to this. I see hylemorphism as the position that
matter beggets form (rather the other way
around which is the more platonic position).
I think it applies fully to the group of attempts
to build Relational (Classical and Quantum)
Theories of
7 matches
Mail list logo
