Saturday, December 21, 2013

More on Murray

Continuing from this post here are more excerpts from Murray's article that support issues in this thread:

“The embodied perspective is strongly supportive of the post-metaphysical stance on ontological issues, which avoids positing Platonic-type object (and ideals) that are said to exist outside of both physical reality and subjective (and intersubjective) reality” (11).

I'd add that it is also a critique of the Aristotelian model as well, which is of this physical world and its inter/subjective, necessary and sufficient logical categorical structure. He seems to address this is statements following the above quote, but not explicitly. On 14 he goes into the fallibility of classical rational/logical reasoning, which can be of either or both types, Platonic and/or Aristotelian. 

On p. 18 he notes that developmental theorists like Commons "controverts the need for metaphysical propositions to explain higher human capacities" (18). Yet most all of his criticisms are directly related to Commons' own formulations per this thread, so not sure why he gives them a pass. 

On p. 19 he notes that “the post-metaphysical pill can be a hard one to swallow.” Reminds me of my comment about the jagged little pill.

Also on 19 he discussed Habermas' rational reconstructive method, “the preconditions that must hold in order for something observed to exist.” Here we have Bhaskar's transcendental deduction, which he is going to discuss later.

On 22 he starts the discussion of prototype theory, much of which is in the thread above. For example, “real phenomena don't tend to exist in the neat categorical boxes that correspond to the constructs we create,” which may indeed “exist between categories, outside them, or in more than one category.” “The traditional logic-based notion of concepts, based on necesssary and sufficient conditions, does not match well to actual human cognition.” Of course I used this information in the thread to attack the MHC's reliance on these exact types of logic-based set theories that are the metaphysical mathematical basis of its constructions.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.