A self-referentially inconsistent statement undercuts itself. It denies or cannot explain something that's required for that statement itself to make sense and be true.
Also, a self-referentially inconsistent statement itself in its own subject matter. Hence, it refers to itself. But a self-referentially inconsistent statement can't explain or justify itself, just as universal skepticism puts itself into the same doubt in which it puts other kinds of knowledge.
In a similar way, anyone who says that something can both be and not be thereby shows the impossibility of their own view.
They cannot say anything, because on their own view words can have no significance.
Moroever, assuming that the same thing can both be and not be, the contradictory of that assumption can be used with equal propriety.
Thus, whatever might be designated as A can be designated as non-A.
“Whatever might be designated as A can be designated as non-A” implies that words have no definite meanings, or even the minimum condition for definite meaning.
In asserting that ‘whatever might be designated as A can be designated as non-A’, one must say something with a meaning that is not completely indeterminate.
In asserting that ‘whatever might be designated as A can be designated as non-A’, one makes use of what one explicitly denies.
To assert that ‘whatever might be designated as A can be designated as non-A’, is to listen to reason while one disowns it.
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
Through Difficulties To Honor
One of the greatest truths is that life is difficult.
But to know that life is difficult is to thereby transcend its difficulty.
Once we accept the fact that life is difficult, its difficulty doesn't matter any more.
There's no reason to believe that life should be easy.
Life is a series of problems. Do we want to moan about them or solve them?
Summary of M. Scott Peck, The Road Less Traveled
But to know that life is difficult is to thereby transcend its difficulty.
Once we accept the fact that life is difficult, its difficulty doesn't matter any more.
There's no reason to believe that life should be easy.
Life is a series of problems. Do we want to moan about them or solve them?
Summary of M. Scott Peck, The Road Less Traveled
Two Of Us
"I would also like to thank many of my teachers and collegues. Principal among them is my wife, Lily.
She has been so giving that it is hardly possible to distinguish her wisdom as a spouse, parent, psychotherapist, and person from my own."
M. Scott Peck, The Road Less Traveled
She has been so giving that it is hardly possible to distinguish her wisdom as a spouse, parent, psychotherapist, and person from my own."
M. Scott Peck, The Road Less Traveled
Sig's Illusion
"I do not believe there are any single easy answers. I believe that brief forms of psychotherapy may be helpful and are not to be decried, but the help they provide is inevitably superficial."
M. Scott Peck, The Road Less Traveled
M. Scott Peck, The Road Less Traveled
SpiritMind
"I make no distinction between the mind and the spirit, and therefore no distinction between the process of achieving spiritual growth and achieving mental growth. They are one and the same."
M. Scott Peck, The Road Less Traveled
M. Scott Peck, The Road Less Traveled
Sunday, March 26, 2006
Specifics 3.18
Reflecting is trying to understand an object within the system that causes that object. It's being aware of something you must have to be able to fit reasons into systems and carry them around in your mind. But that object itself is something different from systems and minds.
Grasping a connection between this super-rational object and those systems and minds is a process.
First get clear on the problem.
Undefined mental bridges connect to islands lost in the fog.
Reflecting is trying to solve a problem. It's trying to get a line from the coast to something helpless at sea through a shifting and uncertain light.
Grasping a connection between this super-rational object and those systems and minds is a process.
First get clear on the problem.
Undefined mental bridges connect to islands lost in the fog.
Reflecting is trying to solve a problem. It's trying to get a line from the coast to something helpless at sea through a shifting and uncertain light.
Self-Repairing Metasystems 3.21.1
Reflection is always trying to solve a problem. To solve the problem, you have to know what the problem really is. But to know what the problem is, you have to know what questioning is. A question is a system of ideas that is trying to fix a problem in its own structure.
Questioning clarifies the problem to figure out how to solve it. Once the system of ideas is as complete as we can make it, we can construct theories. The more complete the system, the more the solution is better, easier, and faster. Wording the question well is part of the process of answering it. Very few can or do truly think. Many minds wander from the subject in hopeless reverie or they just get bored. They can't think about ideas. They may be tired or distracted or just not interested. Or they may be over-emotional. They might be insane, or just plain wierd. These things we pass by. They distort and disrupt by breaking in from the outside.
They have an importance, and some thinking is at the mercy of those factors. But thinking can can never surrender itself completely to the control of the subject-matter and it can be objectively logical, even though it can be influenced by instincts, desires, and feelings. If that were not the case, one could not know that fact, much less state it.
If all thinking is governed by non-logical factors, then that statement itself is also governed by those non-logical factors, and that statement has no more claim on our acceptance than any other non-logical factor. If we can't solve a problem, it's because of a lack of knowledge and-or creativity or the will to inquire.
Questioning clarifies the problem to figure out how to solve it. Once the system of ideas is as complete as we can make it, we can construct theories. The more complete the system, the more the solution is better, easier, and faster. Wording the question well is part of the process of answering it. Very few can or do truly think. Many minds wander from the subject in hopeless reverie or they just get bored. They can't think about ideas. They may be tired or distracted or just not interested. Or they may be over-emotional. They might be insane, or just plain wierd. These things we pass by. They distort and disrupt by breaking in from the outside.
They have an importance, and some thinking is at the mercy of those factors. But thinking can can never surrender itself completely to the control of the subject-matter and it can be objectively logical, even though it can be influenced by instincts, desires, and feelings. If that were not the case, one could not know that fact, much less state it.
If all thinking is governed by non-logical factors, then that statement itself is also governed by those non-logical factors, and that statement has no more claim on our acceptance than any other non-logical factor. If we can't solve a problem, it's because of a lack of knowledge and-or creativity or the will to inquire.