Wow, where do I start. Let's finish the dig on Hegel. My question for you is whether or not you actually believe any tension resulting between thesis and its antithesis is in fact capable of being synthesized? Or, are we simply speaking about the logical subset of knowledge defined as dichotomous or dualistic?And, what is your understanding the process you refer to as synthetic. I have a thesis on this in which the tension is in specific cases resolved analytically. Are you unwilling to allow that? Think of the metaphysics, beginning with dualistic thinking with an antithesis which claims an altogether integral form of logic instead. The tension exists in the world for me almost with everyone I speak to or have conversation with as they express dualistic logic and the blindness that logic creates as dark to light. I know of no way to resolve or indicate how anyone can resolve this tension through synthesis alone. Correct me if I'm wrong but without the ability to analyze the possibility which integral thought or non-dualistic thought presents in order to manifest in one's consciousness, simple synthesis does NOT in fact remove the tension but merely fictionalizes a new narrative which is how we got God as a deity resembling a long white haired Father on the whole of it.Hmmm? rj
You ask about where to start? I'm not even sure why you started on this throwaway comment about the future of this blog.But you have. So, where's your argument for how Hegel is wrong? I see some of your conclusions, but none of your arguments. And if you are at all a regular reader of this blog, you'll know my opposition to the image of God as long white haired Father. And if you've read Hegel, you'll know that he also opposes it.
Post a Comment