Negation of exclusive assertions

Reimagining Principles Enabling an Existential Ecostery (Part #5)

[Parts: First | Prev | Next | Last | All] [Visuals] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]

The use of the particular terms in the examples above highlights the constraint of language. The implication that the generality of the qualitative influence is held by any of the terms cited immediately evokes the sense in which this is not the case -- as with a principle versus a riddle, or with an angel versus a systemic function. Neither one nor the other suffices, as indicated by the Sanskrit phrase Neti Neti. The qualitative conflation, with its implication of a higher order of generality and more fundamental commonality, challenges the process of definition and boundary formation in recognizing distinctions. The quality implied by a principle is not readily to be associated with that implied by a riddle, especially when either (or both) constitutes a challenge to conventional comprehension.

The language constraint is especially evident with those terms framing the qualities as nouns rather than verbs, or vice versa (Freedom, Democracy, Justice: Isolated Nouns or Interwoven Verbs? Illusory quest for qualities and principles dynamically disguised, 2011). The former place undue emphasis on a degree of stasis readily associated with categories. The latter emphasize a process in which any dependable invariance becomes unduly elusive. The dilemma may be variously discussed metaphorically as one of "unfreezing" categories in contrast with "setting them in stone" (Framing the Global Future by Ignoring Alternatives: unfreezing categories as a vital necessity, 2009; Transforming and Interweaving the Ways of Being Stoned: imagination, promise, rocks, memorials, petrification, 2012).

The verb-noun relation can be understood as one of a set of binary distinctions implying a fundamental cognitive challenge as to how each of a pair is to be related to the other -- and whether other possibilities merit exploration (Transcending Simplistic Binary Contractual Relationships, 2012). Such distinctions include: polarities, dualities, subjective-objective, and self-other. (¡¿ Defining the objective ∞ Refining the subjective ?!: Explaining reality ∞ Embodying realization, 2011)

The dynamic relationship of the pair can be explored through metaphors of alternation, most notably through the familiar process of walking -- switching from dependence on one leg to dependence on the other (Metaphors of Alternation: an exploration of their significance for development policy-making, 1984). Although extremely familiar, the use of "left" and "right" in politics, and the challenges to transitions between them, makes it clear that the cognitive implications have yet to integrated with any elegance. Politics at least is best characterized as a case of somewhat pathetic aspiration to "hopping" on one leg, or more radically by dysfunctional "spastic" coordination (as reflecting the spirit of democracy). Similarly the relation between self and other may also be recognized as typically lacking in an elegant dynamic (Us and Them: relating to challenging others, 2009).

This is only too evident in various forms of conflict (interracial, interreligious, interclass, interdisciplinary, etc) -- exemplified by the global war on terrorism and on extremism of any form (Norms in the Global Struggle against Extremism: "rooting for" normalization vs. "rooting out" extremism? 2005). More generally, similar constraints are evident in the relation between static and dynamic perspectives (Dynamic Transformation of Static Reporting of Global Processes: suggestions for process-oriented titles of global issue reports, 2013).

The apparent "binary" contrast in the relationship, understood in practice as "questionable" and paradoxical, can be fruitfully challenged by mapping onto a Mobius strip. (***)

[Parts: First | Prev | Next | Last | All] [Visuals] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]