Discussion opener for GRGR(4) (church and hospital)

[Andrew Dinn]

Bill Burns writes:

  . . .

> The question the reader struggles with (in the presence of the
> official binary opposition) is whether the excluded middle they
> perceive is one that is founded in objective reality or based upon
> their own projections (those unconscious variables). If perception
> exists only in our individual delusions, then we are more likely to
> be swayed by the two juxtaposed possibilities, but still we've
> already germinated the seed of dissent. So maybe we don't "think"
> (as in reason) our way out. Maybe we have to key into some other
> more intuitive faculty here.

Funny but reacting to this binary opposition/third way stuff with an
appeal to `intuition' recalls Wittgenstein's Tractatus and it's notion
that only contingent truths say something, that tautologies or
falsehoods merely exhibit something ineffable which we must therefore
know by some other means than thinking or saying. And the concerns
which led LudWit to this position include right up there at number one
accounting for the objectivity of both the a priori truths of
mathematics and theoretical sciences and the contingent truths of
empirical science. Perhaps, Wittgenstein's later analysis of the flaws
in his early scheme ought also to be brought to bear here.


Andrew Dinn
-----------
And though Earthliness forget you,
To the stilled Earth say:  I flow.
To the rushing water speak:  I am.