5 comments on “Wow, it’s full of holes.

  1. Ian,

    This is just in reference to your concluding parenthesis:

    “Note also comparing Lewis above with Mary Parker Follett, that “integration” of opposites incorporating difference is a better metaphor than “reconciliation”, implying compromise and elimination of difference.”

    Management might do well to integrate or reconcile opposites, but using the same metaphor with respect to metaphysical opposites is a different story. Which is why in the logic of contradictory identity, the point is that the opposites are never reconciled or integrated. Instead, to use Magliola’s phrase, there is an interminable sliding, and by always failing to be integrated, reality happens.

    – Scott

  2. Hi Scott – I think I agree with you, I could see your “contradictory identity” in what I was reading and writing. We’re really just debating the linguistic metaphor of my use / Follet’s use of “integrated”.

    Perhaps “accomodated”, “included” maybe ? – the point being they are NOT “eliminated” – the opposites exist within reality (in fact they are the cause / basis of it).

    BTW you miss Folletts’s point – that’s what she means too. Don’t be dismissive of (quality) management 🙂 This is pragmatism at work, not some ivory tower philosophy.

  3. Hi Paul. Thanks.

    Having just started reading Jay Garfields Nagarjuna, I’ve got the “Twelve Links” allusion. The penny has dropped.

  4. Pingback: Unpicking Confused Causation | Psybertron Asks

Leave a Reply