Karl, Alan,
I guess the response is "Phew".
Alan did say
"I question (but do not exclude) the wisdom of assuming, as a
pre-requisite for enquiry, that anything can be defined in absolute
terms (i.e. as an independent
object isolated from context)."
And later
"'human addiction to conflict' is sustained in the world"
The point I was trying to build on (the only point of mine, my
Catch-22) was that these two statements are closely related. People
who see absolute definitions see conflict. Things that either fit the
terms of a defintion or do not.
The point can be further developed.
Clearly to say, in an axiomatic sounding way,
"It is a pre-requisite of wisdom-enquiry that nothing can be defined
in axiomatic terms" would be an exception to its own rule ... if
viewed as a logical assertion.
It may not be a logical thing to say, but I do actually believe it is
the wise thing to say. And not, I repeat not, because I'm "inspired"
by Alan saying it. (In fact the "Hofstadterian" recursion in the
statement, when viewed as logical assertion, is for me a hint of its
inherent wisdom, in a way that is nigh impossible to describe in any
conventional way - believe me I've tried :-) )
Let's leave it there for now. Whether we are talking the rules of
discourse or the "definitions' of wisdom-enquiry ... this issue will
remain pretty central I'll wager.
Regards
Ian
|