A LONG PARAGRAPH The history of the “good” is transmitted through our oral and written tradition. It is a dialogical part of our social narrative, playing out in and as history. Of course, problems advent when conflicting interpretations of what is considered “good” and “right” come to the fore. This is typified by individuals on opposing sides of a line, each side poised with the `other’ in their sights, each believing themselves to be right, each knowing the other to be wrong. If both are correct and thus “right” in their truths, then neither side can be in possession of truth in any exclusionary sense; as the rules of disjunction [AvB=T] becomes mooted. Hence, the underlying dynamic of antinomy (and the mutual paradox therewith involved) advances, begging the question of truth’s validity. Insofar as any and every person may believe herself “right” and in possession of truth-in-judgment, but insofar as each may have different understandings as to what is to be done and thus as to how “truth” is interpreted or defined (hence the ground for ardent opposition between individuals), conflicting paradigms of truth and “the right” arise.34 When taken to its logical conclusion, the results are simple: if everybody has an equality-of-access to the truth-of-the-good, all with equal access of potency to right judgment, and thus everybody is within the calling edicts of “the right”, then, by distributive negative disjunction, nobody has any real truth, sense of the good, or clue as to what is a real truth or what is “right”; any originary or fundamental sense by which “truth” might be understood as noumenal evaporates into the pressing relativism which grounds truth’s proposition. In other words, by excluding a necessary prong of any duality’s dyad, we render the potency of the `other’ prong moot—there is no high without low, no hot without some intervening and countervailing sense of the difference of cold, etc. Insofar as two individuals can be placed with convictions of truth that run counter to one another, i.e., due to the over-and-against of oppositional positions, this as such positions reflect hierarchical relations that presuppose the delimiting notion that `truth’ is good and thus “better” vis-à-vis the other’s position now deemed false and “less good”, the entirety of man’s epistemic paradigm should come into serious question; for a kind of creeping relativism begins to set in; a relativism that is only staved off by the culture’s imposition of structural rigidity: culture imposes will-to-power via its metaphysical rationale of belief. At bottom, the only bulwark against the implosion of the dominant paradigm is a belief in the paradigm’s efficacy.** --FOOTNOTES-- 34. As you may intuit, there may be a serious divide which separates and estranges what is experienced prethematically verses what transpires in the thematically mediated projections of judgment and understanding qua our metaphysically derived semiotics. ** It matters not in the least that it is because of this mindless “belief” that the ills of the paradigm’s nihilism go unaddressed; and thus it is because of this masking that the continued and accelerated devaluatory dynamic continues to grow. In effect, “belief” acts as a hypnotic which produces a form of denial; though when caught within this dynamic, one forgets that they are forgetful and assumes everything is fine; this as though the self-fulfilling prophecy of some eschatological dream is adventing as an absolute “good”. (Beyond the Capacity; A Single Star in Sight (c)2011 (P)2012)
Posted on: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 03:30:24 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015