“The Glass Bead Game is thus a mode of playing with the total contents and values of our culture; it plays with them as, say, in the great age of the arts a painter might have played with the colours on his palette.” Hermann Hesse – “The Glass Bead Game”
This page is for reflections that fall short of being an article – notes, jottings, and suchlike. Some sections will become articles and disappear from here over into Posts, as has already happened with a few things.
(severely edited from a Facebook discussion, full exchange here. More was said by everyone. Thanks to all involved in the discussion, especially Amber Wolf, Mitz Undertow and Joe Broderick.)
“Nature is worthy of reverence” – Where “nature” is understood in the widest sense, but if it has green / new age connotations, no probs for me. Or substitute “the universe”.
The Moors Murderers, child torturers and killers from near where I live, did their horrific deeds in certain rooms in Hattersley. Were those rooms part of God? Completely?
The way out seems to be with recourse to the unity / totality, that it is the “partial” view which is evil – but imagine explaining that to the child!
Or – the God of Pantheism is not moral in the way that we might sometimes wish him / it to be.
(1) Evil is to do with partiality and a splitting off from the unity / totality.
(2) The pantheistic God is the expressive energy of the universe, and is in some ways heartbreakingly unresponsive to human suffering.
Antonymy – Steven Jones
antonymy, synonymy, hyponymy, meronymy
similarity and difference
gradable antonymy, complementarity and converseness
Eco on Frank on Wilkins in “The Search for a Perfect Language” –
- antonymy (good / evil)
- complementarity (husband / wife)
- conversity (buy / sell)
- relativity (over / under, bigger / smaller)
- temporal gradation (Monday / Tuesday / Wednesday )
- quantitative gradation (centimetre / metre / kilometre)
- antipodality (north / south)
- orthogonality (north-east / south-east)
- vectoral conversity (depart / arrive)
[I can’t see the 2 gradation classifications as opposites]
gradable and ? analogue and digital? uncountable and countable, with binary forming a subset of countable
This paradox of simultaneous difference and similarity is partly resolved
by the fact that opposites typically differ along only one dimension of
meaning: in respect of all other features they are identical, hence their
semantic closeness; along the dimension of difference, they occupy
opposing poles, hence the feeling of difference.
(Cruse 1986: 197) (but here he seems to speak only of gradable)
“However, this is not entirely true. Some linguists,
such as Lyons (1977) and Cruse (1986), apply the label of ‘antonymy’ to
pairs such as heavy/light, new/old and fast/slow, but do not accept that pairs such
as alive/dead, false/true and female/male are antonymous.” (gradable vs. ungradable?)
My point is, within a similarity of only two (salient?) different sub-types, the two sub-types tend to be regarded as opposites
Perhaps human thought tends to get dragged to an over-rating of the explanatory power of opposites with endeavours such as dialectics, because it is prone to oppositionality in the way its systems deal with the world. A linguistic approach to opposites (antonymy) might show that there is less unity amongst the various kinds of opposite or contradiction than dialectical thought promised. [Note Nietzsche but qualify it – some opposites are clear-cut] [The problem with dialectics is that it tries to get opposites to do too much work]
Aristotle’s Square of Opposition –