Monday, 26 February 2007
Two ego state model part 2
Why Dandelion!
You make an interesting comment indeed. I am not sure that I am actually accusing any one of anything.
Come on, give the link to your blog, website and let me know who you are. You know who I am. Or at least say why you wish to remain anonymous? Are you dandy or are you a lion?
But your point is a good one and a valid one and in my view an insightful one.
The two ego state model as I have drawn it is the second last step from the end of the logic from which it flows.
And the last step is?
Many moons ago I wrote an article called "The paradoxical nature of knowledge - Why solipsism cannot be a philosophical question".
In the journals of philosophy one sees many arguments of logic about the question of solipsism.
Solipsism is = the view that the self is all that can be known to exist. The two ego state model is complete solipsism, there is nothing that can be known, that is there is no absolute truth which means the two ego state model can not true. The paradox of knowledge, and the point you make.
As you state the two ego state model says there is not absolute truth and thus how can it be true? If it is not true then it must be false.
Thus in the Paradox of knowledge one cannot debate the question of solipsism in the journals of philosophy. But they do and thus they are illogical in doing so which is one thing a philosopher does not like being called. The fact that I wrote the article - “The paradoxical nature of knowledge”, is illogical.
But I believe I have found a solution. Indeed it seems quite a revolutionary concept in the study of philosophy.
The two ego state model and the question of solipsism can exist. It exists below inside the square.
OK, OK I know you are thinking there is nothing in there. But be a bit expansive with your thought. Within it everything can exist including paradox. So one can consider solipsism and the two ego state model. They can exist and not exist at the same time. What is inside the square is not bound by the rules of logic and philosophical debate. There is everything and nothing at the same time. I have called this in the past, anti-philosophy. This is what you get when you take the study of epistemology (How we know what we know) to its final conclusion. We end up with the content inside the square.
Graffiti
21:54 Permalink | Comments (3) | Email this
Comments
I, personally, think most of the philosophers are bunch of drunk people who come up with ideas to explain their alter in consciousness ok.
It's a great passtiming to get involved in their debates since they are endless debates.
m.o.t.
Posted by: mariam | Tuesday, 27 February 2007
I agree with Mariam.
And we're back to the drunken scientist on the park bench.
Hi, Tony!!
Posted by: Lynn | Tuesday, 27 February 2007
I don't really understand what you're saying but your pictures of the squares or rectangles seem to me to be a free thinking person who is able to be who they are. Some one who is able to absorb what is around them yet not allow it to alter who they are or their perseption of such in relation to every one else. I really like it because its a white board that has a million possibilities and we haven't even started writing on it yet. Imaginations are like that, as can children be.
Something happened to us Graffiti - somewhere between being born and the day we lost our innocense. That's when the rectangles stopped being blank and were stained and more difficult to absorb or learn as easily from life.
I think i'm going to have to read again and again to get it, but i'll try. Cheers...
Posted by: Rosie | Tuesday, 27 February 2007
The comments are closed.