The Shadows of Totalization, Part XLV
Christoffer’s very thought-provoking question:
Is this a symmetrical or an asymmetrical question?
In terms of understanding it as a question about motion, I have been concerned with something resembling symmetry in the way this question has been posed.
We could say, following Christoffer’s question, that we have action (which I will symbolize as A), and we have something else, which is not action, inertia, (which I will symbolize as not-A.)
Conceptually then, we have something which strikes me as symmetrical with regard to what is motion: A== not-A. (“==” is not an equal sign and exactly what kind of sign or relationship it implies is entirely unspecified…This lack of specification is entirely to the point of my meditation.)
Obviously A and not-A are not the same but how they are different isn’t at all obvious and that’s precisely the question Christoffer asked: “how are they different?”
Actually, I find this combination of the obvious difference of A==not-A and the complete obscurity of how they are different to be riveting, significant, enthralling, and deserving of a great deal of attention.
“Isnt action just another (but seemingly different from the view of orientation of the first) expression of inertia? Action is that which resists the pull of inertia, and inertia is that which resist the pull of action .. How are they different?”
Is this a symmetrical or an asymmetrical question?
In terms of understanding it as a question about motion, I have been concerned with something resembling symmetry in the way this question has been posed.
We could say, following Christoffer’s question, that we have action (which I will symbolize as A), and we have something else, which is not action, inertia, (which I will symbolize as not-A.)
Conceptually then, we have something which strikes me as symmetrical with regard to what is motion: A== not-A. (“==” is not an equal sign and exactly what kind of sign or relationship it implies is entirely unspecified…This lack of specification is entirely to the point of my meditation.)
Obviously A and not-A are not the same but how they are different isn’t at all obvious and that’s precisely the question Christoffer asked: “how are they different?”
Actually, I find this combination of the obvious difference of A==not-A and the complete obscurity of how they are different to be riveting, significant, enthralling, and deserving of a great deal of attention.
posted by Yusef Asabiyah at 11:38 AM
2 Comments:
I can think of a simple and maybe cheap solution, by re-posing the question into: What is the difference between A and A = A. In other words, A and A as something which happens to be itself. The A as X is significant, since a movement is necessary to establish the X, which only becomes apparent as itself, after the movement is completed. Following this structure, Inertia is Action but only in a specific context from which it derives its power.
The context is historical, or you could say a central attribute of context is historicity. This is why power changes by history, and so does its being. What is Action in one historical epoche, becomes Inertia in another, or Inertia becomes "an essential void" in one epoch, from which Action materialises in another.
My philosophical doings has always been historical, since we can only learn from experience.
Post a Comment
<< Home